Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Housing Programme

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give approximate figures for the total number of houses started so far this year and the comparative number last year; whether he estimates that there will be an increase next year; and if he will reject any further reduction in the target of 500,000 because of the projected increased number of improvements.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): 306,000 houses had been started up to the end of September this year in Great Britain compared with 353,000 over the same period last year. Last year's figures reflect the starts in the private sector made to avoid betterment levy. I expect public authorities to start at least as many houses in 1969 as in 1968 but it is still too soon to make a forecast for the private sector.
We intend that total public investment in housing should remain about its present level but that a greater share should be devoted to the improvement of older houses.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that that is a rather alarming reply because it indicates no increase in the present total? Does the 500,000 target, less the 33,000 reduction a year, announced in January, remain the target for 1970, in addition to the 200,000 improvements? We need all of them desperately, and his reply last July was not very definite.

Mr. Greenwood: I have not named any further targets since the abandonment of the 500,000. As my hon. Friend knows, completions have been raised to a record level. At the end of September, 479,750 houses were under construction.

Ronan Point Flats (Report)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has yet received the Report of the Inquiry into multi-storey domestic dwellings following the Canning Town disaster in May, 1968; having regard to the decision at Warley, Worcestershire, on 4th July, 1968, to change from gas to electricity in multi-storey domestic hereditaments, what advice as to safety, and alternative fuels, he is now giving to local authorities; and whether he will make a statement concerning multi-storey construction.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minisster of Housing and Local Government what advice he intends to offer to local housing authorities as a result of the Report of the Ronan Point tribunal.

Mr. Greenwood: The Report of the Inquiry into the collapse at Ronan Point was published on Wednesday, 6th November. As I indicated in the statement I made to the House on that day, I immediately began discussions with the system builders and with the local authority associations about the further advice to be given to local authorities.
I have already proposed criteria to be used in the strengthening process. Official discussions have now been held on these proposals, and tomorrow I am meeting representatives of the builders, the Greater London Council and the local authority associations to ensure that any necessary work is carried out swiftly.
I am determined that there shall not be a single hour's avoidable delay in restoring confidence and removing anxiety.—[Vol. 772, c. 902–10.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the march on County Hall, Westminster, yesterday by 100 tenants of a tower block of flats on the Ocean Estate, Stepney, and the Minister's controversy with television personalities, will he apply himself particularly to the fuel aspects? Is his advice to local authorities to withdraw gas from all these tall buildings and to substitute electricity, as has been done


at Warley, Worcestershire, or is that not his advice? Can we have an unequivocal reply on that cardinal point?

Mr. Greenwood: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I accepted the tribunal's recommendations in respect of gas which show that once buildings are strengthened against the possibility of progressive collapse there is no reason why gas should not be used, but in the meantime we shall certainly be recommending to local authorities the points made by the tribunal, and I think that local authorities will be extremely ill-advised to delay cutting off gas from any building which they believe to be susceptible to progressive collapse.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, but is the Minister aware that there is a quite considerable amount of worry in the areas where these buildings are? Although the Minister, rightly, speedily dealt with the gas issue, he does not seem to be getting on with the strengthening of the buildings, which is what people want. Personally, I wish he had accepted the opportunity last week to go on television and tell the people about these things.

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has put. There is certainly no delay, and it is in order to do everything possible to speed up the action which is required that we have already issued the criteria and that I shall be having tomorrow morning the meeting with the organisations I referred to.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would it not be wise for the Minister to allay public anxiety on this matter by accepting the invitation and facilities offered to him by the television companies?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that on publication of the Report I had a Press conference, attended by some 100 representatives of the Press and television, and I later, that evening, appeared on Independent Television. I think, quite honestly, that that kind of interview is much more profitable than an interview conducted by professional entertainers.

Council Houses (Allocation)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take further steps, by legislation or otherwise, to standardise

the methods of allocation of council housing throughout the country.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): At my right hon. Friend's request, the Central Housing Advisory Committee has reconstituted the Housing Management Sub-Committee, to suggest rules or principles to be followed in allocating council housing, and he will consider what further steps may need to be taken on receiving the Sub-Committee's report.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is still a very great deal of ill-feeling, not always justified, throughout the country, about council house allocation, and that if a standardised method could be evolved, and waiting lists made available to the general public, not only would justice be done, but it would be seen to be done?

Mr. MacColl: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and I took the opportunity when addressing the annual conference of the Institute of Housing to make this one of the main subjects of my address.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is one aspect of the problem which may benefit from standardisation, namely, the situation which arises when people in search of temporary accommodation have to move over a boundary from one area to another, as a result of which they are struck off one list and never get on the other? Would he not agree that this problem requires attention?

Mr. MacColl: That is one of the points I particularly mentioned. I drew the attention of the Sub-Committee to this, and asked for its advice.

Rent Act

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the working of the Rent Act, following his meeting with rent officers during the summer adjournment.

Mr. MacColl: When my right hon. Friend and I met a number of rent officers in April they confirmed that in general the fair rent provisions were working well, but they thought that many more tenants could benefit by applying to the


rent officer. It was to these tenants that the publicity campaign last summer was principally directed. The campaign certainly seems to have been successful in producing some increase in applications, but it is too early to assess its long-term effects.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming the general operation of the Act and the benefits that it has brought, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend could do something more to bring this to the attention of tenants—possibly by appearing on television and explaining some of its working?

Mr. Hamling: On the David Frost Show.

Mr. MacColl: I think that my right hon. Friend will naturally be touched by the general consensus of opinion to appear on television. But on this matter we have had a poster and television campaign which has produced encouraging results, although it is too early to say what the final effect will be.

Mr. Graham Page: As the Minister has said, regulation of rents has worked satisfactorily. But when will the Government carry out their promise to refer controlled rents to regulation?

Mr. MacColl: That is a matter that we are likely to be looking into when we consider the problems arising from property in good repair, which will come up in connection with the White Paper.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to overcome the defects in the working of the Rent Act, 1965, which have recently been brought to light; and if he will seek to find a way to notify individual tenants, who would be likely to secure a rent reduction by taking their cases before the rent officer, of their rights.

Mr. MacColl: In general the rent regulation service is working satisfactorily and I am not clear what defects my hon. Friend has in mind. Last summer's publicity campaign was directed to making better known to all concerned the rent officer's services and where they were available.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister consider suggesting to local authorities that they

go from house to house telling tenants of their rights, acting for them before the landlords and rent officers, and also checking up that decisions earlier taken are still being carried out?

Mr. MacColl: I think the important thing is that all people who have local roots and influence on an area should continue to remind tenants about the importance of keeping in touch with the rent officers.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied that information about the Rent Act, 1965, is known to many private tenants in London and other main cities and towns; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacColl: Many more tenants could benefit by applying to their rent officers to fix a fair rent. A recent publicity campaign was aimed at making the service better known and has resulted in an increase in applications from tenants.

Mr. Winnick: I recognise the substantial benefits of Labour's Rent Act, but would my hon. Friend agree that recent reports show that a number of private tenants are still being bullied and intimidated? Will my hon. Friend give a pledge today or in the near future that he will wage an all-out campaign against such racketeers who are making the lives of so many of our private tenants a misery?

Mr. MacColl: We have had an inquiry into what is happening, and we are satisfied that, although there are some cases of grave abuse, by and large the Act is being obeyed and is working. I assure my hon. Friend that we all want to do all we can to express the view that this abuse is monstrous and ought to be stopped.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Member aware that the number of tenants covered by the Regulations under the Rent Act, 1965, is continually decreasing because of the sale of houses for owner-occupation? Would it not, therefore, be much cheaper for direct house-to-house circulars to be issued, rather than for general advertising to be conducted by the hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. MacColl: As all politicians know, not all house-to-house circulars are


read with care. What we must try to do is to ensure that the people responsible for law enforcement are aware of these powers, and that they advise people to take advantage of their rights.

Council Houses (Rents)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it is his policy to relate council house rents to the long-run marginal cost of providing houses.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what studies are currently in progress in his Department on the effect of interest rates on the housing revenue accounts of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): My right hon. Friend is examining various aspects of housing finance in the light of the N.B.P.I. Report on Increases in Rents of Local Authority Housing and the Report of the Working Party on the Housing Revenue Account. We shall consider what further action is necessary when consultations with the local authorities on both Reports have been completed.

Mr. Ridley: Since the nationalised industries have now been instructed to relate their charges to long-run marginal costs, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm—as I think he was endeavouring to do in his slightly complicated Answer—that it is now his intention to relate council house rents to long-run marginal costs, too?

Mr. Robinson: It is my right hon. Friend's intention to consider these two reports and the action arising from them when consultations are completed.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister prepared to consider writing off some of the outstanding capital debt on older housing which is proving a great burden on the housing revenue account?

Mr. Robinson: We shall consider a number of possibilities in the light of these reports. However, at this stage I should not like to be drawn towards any particular solution.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is the Minister aware that the proposal made by the

hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for introducing marginal costs would result in drastic increases in tens of thousands of council house rents? I hope that the Minister will resist this proposal.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister tell the House approximately how much council house rents are increased by having the Bank Rate at 7 per cent. as against the old rate of 5 per cent.?

Mr. Robinson: Not without notice.

House Improvements (Discretionary Grant)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by what time he hopes to bring into effect the new increased limit of £1,000 for the discretionary grant for house improvements.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make known his proposals for dealing with houses in multiple occupation.

Mr. Greenwood: Legislation aimed at giving greater encouragement to the improvement of older houses was promised in the Queen's Speech. I shall in due course be bringing before the House a Bill based on the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, which will contain proposals both for raising discretionary grant limits for house improvements and for strengthening the powers concerning houses in multiple occupation.

Mr. Ridley: Can the Minister tell the House when it is proposed that the new grant will be operative? By announcing his intentions long before it becomes operative, the right hon. Gentleman has created a situation where very few house improvements are going ahead due to everybody waiting for the increased grant?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the Bill before we know when the date will be. Grants under existing conditions are still available and the number of grants approved this year has been satisfactorily high.

Option Mortgage Scheme

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many representations he has


received from mortgage payers who have found they are paying more after taking the option; what estimate he has made of the number or proportion of option mortgage payers to date who are worse off; and if he will now seek powers to enable them to opt out again.

Mr. MacColl: Representations to this effect have been received from some 250 people. I think that very few borrowers will be worse off.
When the scheme incorporated in the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, was being drawn up, it was the view of the Government Departments and lending agencies concerned that the giving of repeated options would gravely interfere with the working of the scheme.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that I find those figures not only unbelievable but almost quite incredible? In a scheme of this type the aim should be to reduce mortgages, and make house purchase easier. It is intolerable that some people should be worse off after going into the scheme, and they must be given the opportunity, at an early date, to opt out if they want to.

Mr. MacColl: I think the real point is that 185,000 people have had an opportunity to become home owners which they would never otherwise have had but for this legislation.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Have not many of these people been lured and defrauded by the pamphlet put out by the hon. Gentleman's Department, and about which we warned him at the time of the last Finance Bill? The number of letters we then received on this subject was very many more than the very few referred to by the hon. Gentleman in his initial reply.

Mr. MacColl: We debated this on 23rd July, and I said then that in revising the pamphlet we were going to see how we could make it clearer.

Mr. Rippon: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the numbers involved, all these people have been grossly misled by the Government, and the Government ought to do something to put the matter right?

Mr. MacColl: Nobody has been grossly misled. Some people have not understood a scheme which, in its early stages, is difficult to explain.

Furnished Accommodation (Tenancies)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to enable tenants of private furnished accommodation to obtain a greater degree of security of tenure than they can at present.

Mr. MacColl: The Rent Act, 1965, increased from three to six months the period of security which rent tribunals are empowered to grant at any one time, and this may be further extended as necessary. This is certainly one of the points which could be considered in connection with any further legislation.

Mr. Barnes: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the recent Shelter Report bears out the dilemma which many furnished tenants paying high rents face, in that if they go to their Rent Tribunal they provoke the landlord to take a course of action which, six or nine months later, leads to their eviction? Cannot he find a way of enabling these tenants to get fair rents without jeopardising their security of tenure?

Mr. MacColl: The difficulty with furnished tenants is that we have to hold a balance between the point made by my hon. Friend and the problem of maintaining a supply of furnished lettings, where people are brought into close personal contact with their landlords.

Freeholds (Purchase)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many leaseholders have so far purchased their freeholds by making use of the machinery laid down by the Leasehold Reform Act.

Mr. MacColl: This information is not available, as the purchase of freeholds under the Act is carried out by private transactions which need not be publicly recorded. But many leaseholders seem to be availing themselves of their rights under the Act or benefiting from the more favourable climate that it has created for the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders.

Mr. Barnes: Does my hon. Friend not agree that many other leaseholders are holding back at present because of the uncertainty about the way in which the


arbitrating machinery will work in practice, and what sort of costs the Lands Tribunal will award? Should not there be a close check in the early stages of the operation of this Act, in order that people may quickly gain confidence in it?

Mr. MacColl: One very useful thing would be for associations of leaseholders to bring these cases to the Lands Tribunal so that they can get some idea of the kind of decision which will be made. This is essentially a matter for the Tribunal to decide.

Mr. Rossi: Is not the Minister aware that there is still a great deal of confusion about the way in which valuations under the Act will operate? Will he take steps to try to clarify the position, if necessary by amending Clause 15?

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that actions of this sort between private freeholders and leaseholders are matters for the Tribunal, as a judicial body, and that it is not for the Government to interfere.

Mr. Graham Page: It is all very well for the Minister to say that the private individual should take his case before the Land Tribunal. Is not he aware that there are now about 20 cases before the Tribunal; that they were to be heard in the autumn, but will not now be heard until the spring? Is it not because the Government drafted the Act so badly that these cases have had to be brought before the Tribunal?

Mr. MacColl: I believe that the Lands Tribunal will be able to deal with cases when they arise.

Controlled Tenancies

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to give landlords of rent-restricted property a right of appeal to a tribunal over controlled rents.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has no proposals in respect of controlled tenancies other than those set out in the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not disgraceful that these landlords should continue to suffer gross injustice? Is it not the duty

of the Minister to provide machinery by which these rents can be reviewed and alternative accommodation with rent rebates provided for old people?

Mr. MacColl: This matter can best be looked at when the legislation is available.

Mr. Molloy: I acknowledge the massive contribution that the Rent Act has made in respect of the peace of mind of millions of people, but is not my hon. Friend prepared to consider that aspect of the legislation which allows landlords—because they can afford it—to engage legal representation before the Tribunal which, because of their financial limitations, tenants are unable to do?

Mr. MacColl: The surveyors' body is running a pilot scheme to see how this can be done. Not many people are using the service, but to some extent it is successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Land Commission

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many persons are now employed in the Land Commission; what is the total cost of the Commission in 1968–69; what estimate he has made of aggregation of betterment levy collected in 1968–69; what is the aggregate acreage of land acquired to date; and what arrangements he plans for a reduction in the cost of the Commission's activites and staff.

Mr. K. Robinson: The total estimated cost of the Commission for 1968–69, as given in the Civil Estimates is £3·7 million. The estimate of levy to be collected in 1968–69 is £8·3 million. The area of land acquired to date is 46 acres, and negotiations for the acquisition of a further 1,900 acres are in hand. The staff of the Commission on 28th October, 1968, numbered 1,256, 210 less than at the beginning of the year, and the review which enabled this reduction to be made is continuing.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the Minister realise from these statistics, given for the first time today, the astronomical cost of this swollen bureaucracy? Could he not expedite progress towards disbandment of


the Land Commission, recognise that he is wrong, adopt Tory policy and chuck it overboard?

Mr. Robinson: The House will not be surprised to know that I do not accept either the hon. Gentleman's views nor his extravagant language. The Land Commission is carrying out two very important functions entrusted to it by this House. Although inevitably it got off to a slow start, both the pace and scale of its activities are now growing at a very satisfactory rate.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend not be deterred in any way from supporting the important work of the Land Commission in its future activities? Will he remember that the answer is not to go back to Tory profiteering?

Mr. Rippon: Will the Minister agree, as far as the two vital tasks are concerned, that in 1968–69 it cost £5 for every £1 of levy to be collected? On his figures it will still cost a very high proportion of each £1 collected. Will he tell the House what acreage of land which the Commission has now acquired could not have been acquired through the ordinary compulsory purchase and planning procedure?

Mr. Robinson: It is obvious that I could not give an answer to the second half of that question without notice. On the earlier part of the question, clearly the cost of collecting the levy will fall rapidly, and will continue to fall, as the amount of levy collected increases. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there were considerable transitional exemptions.

Floods (South-East England)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he does not propose to publish the findings of his inter-Departmental inquiry into the South-East floods in the form of a White Paper.

Mr. Greenwood: My right hon. Friends and I are not conducting an inquiry so much as examining, as is done on all such occasions, whether any lessons can be learned for the future, for example over communications. I shall be sending a circular to local authorities, which will be available to the House and to the

Press, about any points of concern to them that emerge. I do not consider, therefore, that a White Paper is called for.

Mr. Onslow: Surely the Minister is aware that there is continuing public anxiety about such matters as flood warning and flood control? Does he understand that it is essential that these matters should be as widely aired and fully debated in public as possible?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his supplementary question before hearing my Answer. There is good ground for apprehension among the public about this, and that is why we are studying the problem carefully. That is why I have said that I shall be issuing guidance to local authorities, which will be available to the hon. Gentleman as well as to other hon. Members of the House.

Dr. David Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the areas of my constituency which were flooded, many people feel that available warnings of flood were ignored? Would he, in the light of this, consider the possibility, particularly for the affected area of Wands-worth, of instituting a public inquiry, if only to restore some peace of mind among the people in these areas who fear a recurrence of these floods?

Mr. Greenwood: As I have said, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for flood warning, and my right hon. Friend has called a meeting to discuss this subject in the very near future.

Water Rate, Selby

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will instruct the Pontefract, Goole, and Selby Water Board to defer, during the present period of restraint on prices and incomes, the increase in water rates which it proposes to levy on residents of the Selby area of Yorkshire.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am not aware of any proposed increase. The current water rate is higher than last year's, but it came into force last April and most of the rates have already been collected.

Mr. Alison: Is the Minister aware that he has uttered a profound understatement? May I point out that one


of my constituents has suffered an increase in his water rate bill of from £8 to £41, and he pays on the same rateable value? Such a scale of increase would have invoked lynch law in an earlier age. Would he please see that this is reduced?

Mr. Robinson: I agree that the increase, relatively, is very large. I also understand that water rates in Selby have been virtually unchanged since 1930. When one has standardisation, the greatest impact obviously falls on those who have the cheapest rates.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Pontefract, Goole and Selby Water Board is not the only Board about which there are complaints? Does he realise that for some months I have been in correspondence with his Department about the West Pennine Water Board? Is he aware that many of my constituents have had increases of between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. and that one firm has had an increase of 376 per cent.? Does he not think that it is time for some investigation into this?

Mr. Robinson: I will look into the case that my hon. Friend has raised with my Department. It is perfectly true that, when standardisation takes place, there are bound to be complaints from those whose rates go up.

Agricultural Buildings

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what study he has made of the views of local authority associations about the control of agricultural buildings; and if he will amend the General Development Order 1963 to give local authorities tighter control.

Mr. K. Robinson: The views of the local authority associations are being studied as part of a general review of the General Development Order. If there were any question of an amendment affecting agricultural buildings, the farming interests would, of course, be consulted.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general view of the local authority associations, to which I have drawn his attention, is that the con

trol of agricultural development is adequate and that, as the Rural District Councils Association said, the amendments on height and square footage do not adequately cater for the broiler houses and intensive pig-rearing houses, which are now being erected? Will he take account of these representations, and amend the Order accordingly?

Mr. Robinson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that I have written to him at some length upon this matter. One of the things we must do is to get co-operation between the interests involved. A conference was convened last week, under the Chairman of the Countryside Commission, as a first step in this direction.

Caravan Sites Act, 1968 (Part II)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will make an Order bringing Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, into operation.

Mr. Greenwood: I repeat the assurance, given on 14th October, to the hon. Member, that the Order will be made as early as conditions allow, and that in the meantime loan sanction applications for the provision of permanent or temporary sites for gipsies will be sympathetically considered.—[Vol. 770, c. 34–5.]

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister agree that it is rather illogical for him to encourage local authorities to apply for loan sanctions, and to say that such applications will be sympathetically considered, yet to leave the whole of the burden of coping with the gipsy problem to those very few authorities which have actually done something in the last few months? Is he aware that only 350-odd pitches have been provided as compared with the many thousands that are needed if we are to deal with this problem adequately?

Mr. Greenwood: I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I take as close an interest in this problem as he does, but in the present financial situation it would not be right to impose financial burdens upon local authorities who are expected to cut back as far as possible on any increases in expenditure which may be almost inevitable. Progress


can be made, and is being made in various parts of the country. Certainly, loan sanction applications which come to us will be treated sympathetically.

Mr. Macdonald: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, now is the time when local authorities are preparing their estimates for 1969–70. Does he not realise that if Part II is not activated now it will be quite useless to attempt to activate it in six months' time, because there will not be any money available? Will he please think again and consider the extreme urgency of putting Part II into effect?

Mr. Greenwood: I should like to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I am afraid I cannot do so on this occasion. We have made a great step forward in getting this statutory provision, and I hope that economic circumstances in the not-too-distant future will allow further progress to be made.

Flood Relief Funds (Government Contribution)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what contribution he proposes to make to the flood relief funds in Wandsworth.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what financial and other help his Department is proposing to give to those who suffered in the recent floods in South-East England.

Mr. Greenwood: I hope to announce the Government contribution within a few days. The apportionment among appeal funds will be made when all claims on those funds have been assessed.

Dr. Kerr: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will take notice that what is in the mind of the public is the need for urgency in bring help? It is no use telling people, when their walls are covered with slime and their carpets are rotting, that they will have the money in future. Will the Minister in future look to a more speedy response to the problem?

Mr. Greenwood: There must be a speedy response all round. The help that the Government gave in a practical

sense at the time of the floods was considerable. The difficulty about announcing a financial contribution is that there have been over 40 flood relief funds established. Until they have completed an appraisal of the damage in their areas and the consequent financial liabilities, it is impossible for the Government to gauge the size of the contribution which would be appropriate.

Mr. Channon: Does the Minister realise that it is now nearly two months since this disaster happened? It is a matter of the utmost urgency that people should know exactly what the extent of Government relief will be. Will the Minister give an undertaking to make a statement in this House so that hon. Members are made fully aware of the situation and can question him about this vital matter affecting their constituencies?

Mr. Greenwood: I am always available to be questioned by hon. Members. But the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that most of these flood relief funds are worked by volunteers whose time is limited. They have undertaken a complex job. Until they have substantially completed their work, the Government are unable to intimate the exact amount of the contribution that will be made.

Charvil, Berkshire (Parish Status)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government upon what date in 1969 he proposes to grant parish status to Charvil in Berkshire.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I have explained to the hon. Member by letter that the Minister has not yet received any formal application affecting Charvil.

Mr. van Straubenzee: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that letter and understanding the limitations of the statutory procedure, may I ask whether he will nevertheless, when he receives the application, remember that it comes from a very lively local community which is now long overdue for the status of a parish?

Local Government Finance

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what study he has made of the practice in other countries which operate a sales tax for raising revenue for local government purposes, in addition to taxing property; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Skeffington: Overseas practice had been taken into account when the Government concluded that fundamental changes in local finance were not practicable within the existing local government structure. There will be a further review in the light of what emerges from the work of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Mr. Ridsdale: Did the study reveal that in Southern Ireland the 2½ per cent. sales tax is equivalent to 2s. 6d. Income Tax? Is not this one way of getting the heavy hand of Whitehall out of local government?

Mr. Skeffington: These matters were fully considered in the review. I should inform the hon. Gentleman that this is a national sales tax, not a local sales tax. It involves the registration of all the retail outlets, which would require a very large staff. Though it might reduce rates, it would certainly put up prices. These are not reasons why the system should not be considered, but it is not necessarily a fool-proof answer.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to allow councils to raise revenue from other sources in addition to the rates.

Mr. Skeffington: This is a matter best considered in the context of decisions about reform of the local government structure in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that the limitation of the general grant will put an intolerable burden on the owner-occupier living on a small fixed income? Will he do something to see that alternative sources are made available as soon as possible.

Mr. Skeffington: Pending any reform that will follow the Royal Commission's report to the Government in local gov

ernment matters, the Government themselves have passed substantial legislation which gives this relief. Domestic relief to ratepayers amounted to £23 million in 1967–68, and £47 million this year, in addition to our rate rebate scheme.

Rate Rebate Scheme

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to publicise the rate rebate scheme to ensure that those householders entitled to relief are made aware of the scheme.

Mr. Skeffington: It is primarily for rating authorities to secure the appropriate publicity, but the Department has helped them by printing five million leaflets and posters so far this yar, and by placing advertisements in the national Press. There have also been radio and Press reports and appearances on television. Parallel activity by voluntary organisations has been encouraged. Further campaigns will be mounted as and when appropriate.

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that since the income levels and children's allowances were changed many more families have come within the ambit of this relief? In spite of the publicity which my hon. Friend's Department has carried out, there is still a difference in the take-up between authority and authority, which is a matter for concern. Will my hon. Friend continue to press for the continuation of publicity so that people know about this?

Mr. Skeffington: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department, with local authorities, will take every step open to it before the new rebate period starts.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman referred to advertisements in the national Press. Are advertisements being put in the local Press as well?

Mr. Skeffington: There have been some in the local papers, and local authorities have taken on additional publicity as well.

Sewer, Wokingham

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now authorise Wokingham Borough Council to incur the


necessary expenditure to lay a foul sewer in Sandy Lane and Bearwood Road at Wokingham.

Mr. K. Robinson: Unless there is any new evidence of urgency, I regret that the work must wait until it is possible to relax the restraint on increases in public capital investment.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the papers, particularly with regard to his former Ministry, and notice that the medical officer of health has given a serious warning of health hazard in this case? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that for that reason, if no other, he ought to look at the matter again?

Mr. Robinson: I have looked at the papers. The report of the medical officer of health six months ago did not seem to indicate any immediate danger to public health, but I repeat that if there is new evidence I shall certainly consider it.

Land Development (Betterment Levy)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied that there is no avoidance in the payment of betterment levy as a result of developers failing to notify the Land Commission of the intended development; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am satisfied that there is no widespread avoidance of betterment levy through failure to notify intended development. The Commission use a variety of sources to ensure both that the requirement to notify them of intended development is observed, and that failures to notify come to their notice. Moreover, the penalties for failure to notify are heavy enough to serve as a deterrent.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary member of the public cannot tell, from the literature sent to him, what is material development of a notifiable kind? These threats of a fine of £500 do not make the matter any clearer for the public.

Mr. Robinson: I can only repeat that the evidence in my possession shows that there is no widespread avoidance.

Planning Development (Jet Aircraft Noise)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what restrictions he intends to introduce on development in the neighbourhood of airfields where there is nuisance from jet noise.

Mr. Skeffington: Local planning authorities were given guidance in the Ministry's Circular 22 of 1967. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Allason: But has not the Minister given more specific instructions in the case of Gatwick? Having given those instructions, that in the really bad area there should be no hospitals, no schools, and not even dwellinghouses, should not this be extended to other airfields such as Stansted and Luton where aircraft noise is a growing nuisance?

Mr. Skeffington: The question of planning permission in the first instance, for any of these matters, is for the local planning authority, which can impose conditions in relation to building or soundproofing, or refuse permission. In these cases there may be an appeal to the Minister, and I cannot comment at this stage.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the priorities in this question seem to be wrong? Does not he believe that the need is not to restrict development in these areas, but to have further restrictions on jet noise in areas where there is existing or proposed development?

Mr. Skeffington: I think that the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is really a matter for the Board of Trade, but all these matters are considered together to try to get the right balance, allowing development, and at the same time preventing the creation of intolerable conditions for people living locally.

Business Premises (Advertising)

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further measures he is considering to extend the control of advertising at business premises.

Mr. Greenwood: I am considering whether control should be extended to


certain advertisements inside buildings but visible from outside, and whether the conditions under which advertisements may be displayed with deemed consent should be changed.

Mr. Alison: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is not considering the exclusion of advertising from garage forecourts in future? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the view expressed by Lord Robens, the President of the Advertising Association, that there is no reasonable assumption that a reduction in advertising will lead to a reduction in retail prices?

Mr. Greenwood: I have not reached a conclusion on the question of garage forecourts which are not part of business premises, but I am looking carefully at those situations in which what is otherwise a beautiful street or district can be spoiled by what I regard as vulgar advertisements inside some of the shop windows.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the public dislike advertisements inside premises? Why is he seeking more control? Will he pay attention to the extensive public opinion poll recently which showed that the public like outdoor advertising?

Mr. Greenwood: The Question does not refer to outdoor advertising, but I hope that the public dislike any vulgar advertising, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does.

Wash Barrage (Feasibility Study)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will extend the feasibility study on the Wash Barrage proposal to include the question of major land reclamation for agricultural, urban, and airport development.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Water Resources Board has put in hand a desk study on water conservation within the Wash. They will appraise the case for a full feasibility study and, in consultation with Government Departments and others, will indicate those subjects, including land reclamation, navigation and communications, which might be investigated in the course of such a study.

Mr. Roberts: But would my right hon. Friend agree that the present tuppeny-ha'penny study will achieve very little, and that we have an opportunity, with a worth-while study in the Wash, for possible usage of this land for agricultural purposes, for urban development, and even, perhaps, for solving the problem of a third or fourth London Airport?

Mr. Robinson: I agree that those possibilities are very important, but the Government are satisfied that the best first move is to set in hand this desk study which will carry out its studies as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES (AID)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take the initiative in promoting a world-wide plan, on the lines of Marshall aid, to relieve the poverty and starvation in the underdeveloped world.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The United Kingdom already plays a leading part in the efforts which are being made in the United Nations and other international bodies to further the growth and prosperity of the less developed countries.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Prime Minister pledge the fullest co-operation with Mr. Robert McNamara, of the World Bank, to ensure not only that aid is increased but also, and equally important, that it is used to the best advantage?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have given a great deal of thought to ensuring that it is used to the best advantage in recent aid schemes within the limitation of our financial position. I am happy to give that pledge to the hon. Gentleman and also the pledge of full co-operation with the important study being conducted under the chairmanship of Mr. Lester Pearson.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had on H.M.S. "Fearless" concerning the expenditure of an extra £10 million per annum


on African education; and to what extent he reached agreement with the Rhodesian régime on the administration of the scheme.

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister without Portfolio to Rhodesia.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of his discussions with Mr. Ian Smith.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in any proposed agreement with the illegal Smith régime a pre-requisite will be that all African Nationalist leaders and others who have been detained without trial in Rhodesia must be freed before any agreement is signed by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the visit to Rhodesia by the Minister without Portfolio.

The Prime Minister: As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio has had discussions with the régime in Rhodesia covering the full range of the "Fearless" proposals and will resume them later this week. There remains a deep difference on some fundamental issues and important points of detail. I do not feel that it would be right to go into further detail of the discussions at present.

Dr. Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the generous grant to help African education was one of the main planks justifying the "Fearless" terms, but will he also confirm that all that this would do, even if implemented in the most generous way for the African population, would be to narrow the gap so that the per capita expenditure on African education would be one-quarter instead of only one-tenth of the expenditure on the education of white Rhodesians? Does not he agree that this merely slows up the rate at which the two populations are moving apart?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

The Prime Minister: I should want notice of the question about relative expenditures on European and African education. This was an important proposal that we made, directly related to the welfare of the Africans, and I have no reason to think that Mr. Smith and his colleagues would not be fully co-operative in what we have proposed in this connection.

Mr. Whitaker: Since any agreement with Rhodesia is quite valueless unless it is accepted by the majority of Rhodesians, why will not the Government refuse to negotiate with the Rhodesian minority leaders unless the majority leaders are present?

The Prime Minister: We have said many times that no agreement can be implemented in relation to Rhodesia unless, under the fifth principle, it is shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Smith's action in pulling down the Union Jack this week has not only shocked local people but has disgusted many hon. Members? In view of this, does not he now feel that Mr. Smith is insincere in saying that he wishes to have a genuine settlement between his people and ours?

The Prime Minister: I think that this action—which has no more significance, in legal terms, than any other action taken by the illegal régime—has caused a great deal of feeling not only in this House and this country but in Rhodesia, even among many of Mr. Smith's supporters, but it should not be regarded as a test of sincerity. The progress of the negotiations should be regarded as the best test of that.

Mr. Lewis: Putting it no higher than that there are some who have doubts about Mr. Smith's sincerity in this matter, would it not show that he was really sincere if he adopted the suggestion contained in my Question and provided an opportunity for these people to be given their freedom?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware from what we stated, both in the "Fearless" document and in the debate thereafter, that one of the necessary conditions of an agreement relates


to the release of detainees under approved procedures, which we discussed in H.M.S. "Fearless" and which are, of course, the subject of further discussions with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend now state the reaction of the African Rhodesian leaders to the "Fearless" proposals? Does he not consider it peculiar that, while these somewhat delicate negotiations are proceeding, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) should be planning to speak tomorrow night at the annual dinner of the Anglo-Rhodesian Society?

Mr. Faulds: Disgraceful. That is how little it matters to you people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is about time that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) learned to control himself.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the African leaders, none of whom, I believe, is a member of the Anglo-Rhodesian Society, my right hon. Friend had meetings last week with Mr. Nkomo and colleagues and Mr. Sithole and colleagues separately. He has also been able to sound out a wide range of African opinions in Rhodesia, though I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to indicate the first results of his findings.
As to where the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) spends his evenings, that is, of course, entirely a matter for the right hon. Gentleman. If he speaks to the Anglo-Rhodesian Society in the terms in which he last addressed the House of Commons, it might do a great deal of good for people who need some guidance.

Sir G. Nabarro: Speaking of dinners, and the Prime Minister's speech last evening at the Mansion House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These Questions are about Rhodesia.

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker—to which I listened with avidity, can he tell the House what instructions he has given to his envoy in Rhodesia about safeguarding British investment in Rhodesia and the resumption of full British trade with Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: That does not seem to have much to do with dinners, or with my speech last night, which was at the Guildhall and not at Mansion House. If the hon. Gentleman not only listened but applied his mind to these problems, he would realise that it has been made clear, in the statement following the discussions on H.M.S. "Fearless" and in the debate that followed, that the question of trade with Rhodesia and of sanctions must follow on an agreement which is not only negotiated between ourselves and those in Rhodesia but which is also shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Not even the hon. Gentleman, I think, would wish to press for the winding up of sanctions before such an agreement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While many of us are very sad at the change of flag in Rhodesia—as sad as many Rhodesians are—was any concern expressed by hon. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party when the Union Jack was hauled down anywhere else?

The Prime Minister: In every other case, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, the Union Jack has been hauled down at the end of a period of colonial rule, following agreements negotiated with the countries concerned on the basis of majority rule, either by the present Government or by our predecessors, and in all cases with full constitutional authority. The position in Rhodesia, as he will recognise, is entirely different.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMINISTRATION (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to reduce the size of his Administration.

The Prime Minister: The number of Ministerial appointments will be kept as low as is consistent with the Government's programme to reform and modernise our institutions, and guide the restructuring of the economy.

Mr. Onslow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole national effort to earn a living is prejudiced when favoured minorities are headlined in successful attempts not to earn their keep, as he said at Guildhall last night?


Since that is so, would he accept that his own Administration is the most overpaid, the least popular and the least disciplined minority in British history?

The Prime Minister: Considering the amount of time which the hon. Member devoted to thinking out that crack, I do not think that it was half as good as that of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in the debate on the Address in 1964. He did it far better. The increase in the—

Sir G. Nabarro: What was it?

The Prime Minister: It is in HANSARD; the hon. Gentleman can look it up.
The size of the Cabinet is exactly the same as it was under the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. With regard to the Administration as a whole, the increase of 16 compared with those days is partly accounted for by the fact that, with the general good will of the House, I think, there are no longer any unpaid Assistant Whips. It was agreed that all Whips should be paid, including the Opposition Chief Whip. That is a very good step forward as well, and he certainly earns his keep.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that he now has the largest Government in the world? Will he explain his motivation in appointing a Minister for Planning and Land, having, only a few months ago, abolished the Department of Land and Natural Resources?

The Prime Minister: The Departments were amalgamated at that time and, in view of the very heavy load which will fall on my right hon. Friend's Department in relation to the Maud Report and the long-deferred reform of local government, which hon. Gentlemen opposite were content to leave on the basis of the 1888 and 1894 Acts, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel, I think, that it is right that that Department should be adequately manned for the tasks which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite failed to do.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be no complaints from this side if he included another 250 in his Administration? Is he also aware that there may be some imbalance?

Would he compare the number of Ministers, for example, at the Ministry of Power, with those at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

The Prime Minister: I take note of my hon. Friend's first question and do not necessarily disagree with it. He will be aware that we have, of course, amalgamated not only two very important Departments of State, but three—the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office. My hon. Friend will be in no doubt, therefore, about the heavy load falling on Ministers there. As to the Ministry of Power, I think that the staffing there is right in relation to the load which they have to carry.

Mr. Peyton: Surely not even the Prime Minister can believe that so swollen an Administration is justified, but does he not realise that this Question it altogether too modest and that, for most of us, the reduction of the Administration would be nothing like sufficient until their total elimination has relieved the odium in which they are held?

The Prime Minister: Not even the Prime Minister could believe that any Administration, however large or small, could ever have contained, as one did, the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Prime Minister whether the Paymaster-General is responsible for the co-ordination of home information services.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on Thursday, 24th October to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emyrs Hughes) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).—[Vol. 770, c. 366.]

Mr. Campbell: Will the Paymaster-General co-ordinate information imparted by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and the President of the Board of Trade on credit squeezes, by the Minister of Technology and other Ministers on broadcasting and by the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Governor of the Bank of England on general policy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member, unfortunately, does not seem to have studied my Answer on 24th October. As one of her predecessors did, my right hon. Friend will in this House answer Questions on these matters of co-ordination of home information. She will not be so responsible. I have always set my face against using taxpayers' money to have anyone acting in the position of Minister of Information, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite did, for party gain.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is there any help which the Paymaster-General can give to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Jeremy Thorpe) with his speeches? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Devon, North, protested with some violence yesterday about the action of the Press in ignoring his important speech in The Hague, and that the Press have now ignored both the speech and the protest?

The Prime Minister: I am very sorry about that. I feel with right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that the conference at The Hague was an extremely important conference, at which some extremely important speeches were made. It is not for me to offer any help to the right hon. Gentleman with his speeches. At least I welcome the fact that he writes his own speeches, which means that it does not just prove that he can read other people's speeches.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we may now get back to the Paymaster-General.

Mr. David Howell: When the Paymaster-General answers Questions at the Dispatch Box, will the Prime Minister make sure that she tells us why the new Civil Service Department has been set up and a major change in the system of Government and executive has been initiated without the matter having been discussed in the House?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is aware that agreement was reached in the summer that there should be a debate in the House about the Fulton Report. It had to be postponed, for a reason which I think the House understands—because of the need to debate the Rhodesian situation in the period just before Prorogation. We should have had a debate. I can tell the hon. Member that talks have been going on through the

usual channels and that we may expect a debate very soon on the Fulton Report. In any case, the Order establishing the new Department, which was made a whole week before it came into effect, was subject to a negative Resolution, had the hon. Member or any other hon. Member wished to table a Prayer.

Mr. Heath: In his earlier reply in Written Answers the Prime Minister said that the Paymaster-General would be concerned with devolution and decentralisation. Exactly what will be her relations with the Commission on the Constitution when that is set up, and when will it be set up?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find that I dealt with some of these matters in further Written Answers last week. The responsibility for the Constitutional Commission will be that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is intended that right away consultations should begin first of all with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and as soon as the consultations are complete we propose to set up the Commission, I hope on a mutually agreed basis with all concerned. It is certainly not intended that this should simply be a Government-imposed attempt to solve these problems but that, as far as possible, it should carry consensus approval.

Mr. Heath: I fully understand that the Home Secretary will be responsible, but what, then, will the Paymaster-General be doing about decentralisation and devolution?

The Prime Minister: As I said in the debate on the Gracious Speech, the appointment of the Constitutional Commission, which will obviously take a considerable amount of time to do its work, must not be a reason why, if the Government or the House as a whole decide that action should be taken in the interim in respect of England and Wales or in respect of the very urgent problems of Northern Ireland, that action should be help up. My right hon. Friends and all those concerned will be free to join in bringing to the House urgent action which needs to be taken ahead of the report of the Constitutional Commission.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General be


responsible for the establishment of a Scottish Specialist Committee and for investigation into Scottish affairs?

The Prime Minister: The appointment of Committees of this House are matters for the Leader of the House, after consultation through the usual channels and with all points of view in the House.

FLATS, SHEFFIELD (COLLAPSE)

Mr. Hooley (by Private Notice): Mr. Hooley (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will order an inquiry into the collapse of a five-storey block of flats under construction in Sheffield, which resulted in the death of two workers.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I understand that Sheffield Corporation and the builders are making an immediate investigation of the causes of this regrettable accident. There is also to be an inquest. I shall await reports of their outcome before deciding whether any further inquiry is needed.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with those who were injured and with the families of those who lost their lives.

Mr. Hooley: The House will be shocked to hear of another accident involving system building and will, I am sure, endorse the Minister's expression of sympathy. Is my right hon. Friend completely satisfied that there is sufficient expertise in his Ministry, and at local level, and also among construction companies, in the safety aspects of system building?

Mr. Greenwood: We should be very careful not to link the accident to the building in Sheffield with that a Ronan Point. The building in Sheffield was a five-storey, low-rise building. It was built by a system which is that of the Yorkshire Development Group, which has proved perfectly satisfactory in the past. We ought to deplore any remarks which might imply that system building as a whole is unsafe. Plenty of expert advice is available to us, and we shall act as and when necessary in the light of the inquiries which are taking place.

Mr. Heffer: As a former building trade operative myself, may I be associated

with the condolences to the families of those who have been killed or injured as a result of the tragic accident?
May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that, as he rightly said, not all system building is dangerous and not all high-rise flats which are built on system principles are necessarily bad; in fact, they have been proved successful in this country and throughout the world.
But I make this point to my right hon. Friend: in investigating this question of safety, would he take into consideration that there is far too high a rate of accidents in the building industry? Can we not have a fuller inquiry into the whole question of safety for operatives in the building and civil engineering industries?

Mr. Greenwood: I very much appreciate what my right hon. Friend said, with his deep experience and knowledge of the building industry. The point here is that this was what one might call a structural accident of the kind which, unfortunately, happens from time to time in the building industry. There is no question of the design being defective or of danger in any other buildings built under the same system. It was an accident of the kind which occurs in the industry. I take the point which my hon. Friend made. I will certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friends who are also concerned with the building industry.

AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVES

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about agricultural objectives.
The Government have carefully reviewed the contribution made by agriculture to the national economy over past years. This review has amply vindicated the industry as one which has made efficient use of the resources devoted to it. Productivity has continued to rise. Output has increased. There has been a valuable saving in imports. All this has been achieved without a significant increase in support costs and consistently with our international obligations. The industry has given good value for money to the British people, both as consumers and as taxpayers.
Against this background the Government have decided that the selective expansion of agriculture should continue, provided that this is based upon the maintenance of the rate of increase in the industry's productivity. The programme announced in 1965 took us forward to 1970–71. Now we are to project it to 1972–73. We shall, of course, continue to take stock from year to year as we go along.
We have had a valuable report from the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture on the import saving possibilities of agriculture to 1972–73. The Government have examined the Committee's technical assessment. In addition, we have had to take into account the likely consequences on the use of resources and support costs and our international obligations.
The Economic Development Committee, in looking at cereals production for the next four years, believed that it would be possible to overcome the husbandry and disease problems to achieve increasing average yields. We consider that, taking into account the quality of the additional land which would have to be brought into production, the objective set by the Economic Development Committee may prove to have been a little optimistic. This year's difficult harvest underlines some of the uncertainties which cereal growers can face.
For pigmeat, the Economic Development Committee proposed a very large increase indeed. Much of the expanded production would have to go for bacon. The Committee assumed that it would be possible to obtain a rapid expansion in the production of British bacon of the right quality and at the right price. There are some difficult technical and marketing problems in doing this. But we are looking to the curing industry to increase its share of the market by improving its productivity and competitiveness. Subject to these points, we welcome and endorse in broad terms the Economic Development Committee's assessment.
Our broad objectives over the next four years will be as follows. I have sounded a note of caution about the practical pace of advance in cereals production. Our objective, however, for cereals is clear. We aim to expand production as much as is technically possible and con

sistent with reasonable resource use and support cost. With this objective, goes an expansion of the appropriate break and fodder crops. For sugar beet, we shall maintain the acreage against a level of consumption of sugar which is, at best, static. We shall continue to aim at meeting the demand for main crop potatoes for human consumption. We shall encourage the output of the right quality potatoes for the processing industries.
It remains important that we should make significantly better use of our grassland. The Economic Development Committee considered that, on this basis, a continuing growth of beef production was possible. We should like to see an increase in suitable calf retentions. We should also like to see any increase in the dairy herd for beef production related to cheaper milk production; for example, from summer grass.
We accept that we should continue an expansion of beef from the beef and dairy herds. This means that for these important commodities, beef and milk, we are aiming for increased output, similar to that suggested by the Economic Development Committee up to 1972–73. We recognise the importance of sheep and aim at a continued shift of the flock towards the hills and uplands.
For those commodities where we are already virtually self-sufficient—namely, poultry, eggs and pork—we shall aim to increase production to meet rising demands. We shall encourage the bacon curing industry to improve further its productivity so as to produce more bacon of a quality and at a price which will attract the consumer. We also wish to see the encouraging expansion of the horticultural industry continuing on the basis of its competitive efficiency.

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order. Could not this important speech be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that we could give it the study which it deserves?

Mr. Speaker: That will no doubt happen. It does help if statements made to the House are as concise as possible; but that is a question for the Minister himself to decide.

Mr. Hughes: I have tried to set out clearly the broad aims of a balanced programme for the whole industry. It


goes a long way towards the import saving objectives of the Economic Development Committee. Although, for the reasons I have set out, the full import saving envisaged by the Committee would not be reached by 1972–73, nevertheless, by that time, we should achieve a net saving of about £160 million a year.
I should emphasise that, in the context of the programme, the Government are well aware of the need for stability in our markets. This stability contains support costs and gives confidence to the industry. Measures to promote such stability already exist for many commodities, such as cereals, butter, bacon and potatoes. Further measures for other commodities may be required. This is under consideration by the Government.
We believe that it is within the capacity of the British industry to achieve the objectives of selective expansion which I have outlined. Much must depend, however, on the ability of the industry to go on improving its technological standards; on the extent to which its rising productivity can help to hold down support costs; and on the attention which it pays to marketing.
We believe that, if this progress can be made, the selective expansion can be achieved with an economic use of resources and consistently with our international obligations. The development of the programme, its cost, the resources required and the market situation will clearly have to be examined with the industry at each Annual Review.
I believe that the industry and the country will welcome the guide lines that we are laying down for the years ahead. I am sure that farmers and growers will do their part. They can be sure that the Government believes in them and in their potential for making a further major contribution to our economic prosperity.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the hosts that I see rising before me, may I warn hon. Members that I must protect the business of the House. Mr. Godber.

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friends and I would welcome any proposal for agricultural expansion which is based on sound economic grounds. The right hon. Gentleman's lengthy statement, however, begs far more questions than it answers.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that he will get the increased production for which he calls when farmers are not told how he intends to deal with, for example, dumped imports, or how the expanded production will be financed? What does he intend to do about such things as dumped imports of cheese? What is he doing about the marketing of eggs, a subject on which producers are anxiously awaiting some information?
Does his statement mean that the production targets to which we have been working under the expansion programme in the National Plan have been raised? If not, what does his statement mean? Will he clarify the position to the House?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to understand the importance of my statement. He is obviously more concerned to make party political points than to secure the confidence of the agricultural industry. He knows perfectly well, on the question of eggs, that the Reorganisation Commission has published a voluminous report, that it is now being considered and that consultations are taking place. To answer his question about cheese, he knows that consultations are going on with our overseas suppliers.
The right hon. Gentleman realises—he should realise, as he was a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture—on the question of support, that these matters are dealt with when the Review determination takes place. He should not betray so much ignorance when asking supplementary questions.

Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend has outlined a series of aspirations. Can he say what relation these will have with the Price Review? Can he give a detailed breakdown of the £160 million import savings figure which he mentioned?

Mr. Hughes: The industry will obviously need the resources to do its job. As the House knows, the Annual Review examines what the resources are and how they are to be found.
To answer my hon. Friend's question about the figure of £160 million, I have set out the objectives for agricultural production in broad terms, but it would be unwise and imprudent of me to set specific targets, as hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies will be aware. I do not believe that it would


be desirable to set out detailed financial targets for each separate commodity.
I have tried to set out a balanced programme. Changes in the industry's circumstances at home and in its export opportunities abroad could only leave a rigid programme unaffected if we forcibly directed the industry. I do not want to compel the industry, but to lay down guidelines, and that is what this programme does.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although it may have a sort of biblical annotation to urge people to drive their flocks to the hills, that is quite the wrong way round, because sheep should be fattened on the low ground and not up on the hills? Does he realise that it cuts absolutely no ice whatever for him to encourage home producers and then to go to Denmark and speak soft words to the Danes?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has asked a completely irresponsible question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My statement made it clear that we appreciate the importance of sheep farming to the economy, particularly of the hill and upland areas. We have already given considerable help by way of production grants and in other ways. For example, the hill sheep subsidy is worth about £6½ million and wool guarantee payments of about £7 million are expected this year. We shall need a vigorous expansion to offset the reduction of sheep numbers in the lowlands. There is plenty of scope for this expansion.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the E.D.C. Report on Agriculture did not take fully into account our international obligations? Will he further agree that for a nation that is as dependent as we are on international trading this poses some very serious, difficult and complex problems? Does he not think that the time is now overdue for a serious, all-embracing reappraisal of our international agricultural obligations?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate, as my hon. Friend says, that the E.D.C. did not consider our international obligations, by which we are bound. At present, we are entering into consultations on the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding entered

into by the party opposite five years ago. Naturally, we look at our international commitments from time to time to see how they affect home production and, where it is necessary, we shall seek to renegotiate the commitments we have.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister's long statement made no reference at all to problems relating to farm workers? Does he appreciate that the meagre wage paid to these men can never be put right unless the income is there for the farmer, and that men are leaving the farms by the thousand? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Hughes: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for our farm workers. We certainly appreciate the importance of the farm worker. I realise as, I am sure, the House does, that the E.D.C. Report regarded the outflow of labour from the agricultural industry as a possible limitation on expansion, but I think that the statement I have just made should increase the industry's confidence in its future. I shall continue to keep a very close watch on the labour situation, which I regard as important.

Mr. Hazell: I am sure that the whole House, and farmers generally, will welcome the statement just made by the Minister in its acceptance of the main principles outlined in the E.D.C. Report. I am sure that the whole industry has been waiting to get the Minister's reaction to that important Report. Does my right hon. Friend think that the industry will have the skilled workers required to achieve the programme he has outlined?

Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I agree about the need to retain skilled workers on the land. This is a matter which we are looking at very carefully. But the important thing is that the industry should have confidence in the future and become more productive and efficient even than it is now. This is the best way to ensure the future of the agricultural worker.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the farmers are getting rather fed up with bromides like "increased production", "better service", "better quality", "hard work", and all that sort of thing? Does he realise that what they want is


better prices? Will he not agree that the farmers are the exact opposite of the nationalised industries, which give worse service at increased cost?

Mr. Hughes: I shall be grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will spend this evening studying the statement I have made in the House. If he requires any further elucidation, I should be very glad to explain it to him.

Mr. Tomney: In an effort to assist the Minister, Mr. Speaker, and to pour oil on troubled waters, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would now state in advance of the Price Review next February that it is not his intention to increase guaranteed prices or support prices beyond the existing levels, because the support price is never reflected in the shops, especially at weekends?

Mr. Hughes: These obviously are matters which will be considered in February and March, when the Price Review is being considered.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: We welcome the fact that the Minister has given very serious consideration to the recommendations of the Economic Development Committee's Report. Since it is very doubtful whether the target set for 1970 in the earlier plan will be reached, and the Minister wants further expansion by 1973, will he bear in mind that what the industry needs most is an injection of more capital through better prices for the end product?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the importance of retaining sufficient skilled labour on the land? To that end, will he see that the agricultural wage is brought more into line with that paid in other industries?

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I certainly have the points he has made very much in mind. What he and the House should realise is that we are going for the broad objectives of the E.D.C. programme. This is the important advance that we are today making. As regards beef and milk, we are going for the broad objectives of the E.D.C. programme. This will give the agricultural industry more confidence than it has had for many years past, and certainly more than it had under the party opposite, which never had any plan for expansion.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will welcome his tribute to the small farmer for his attempts to increase productivity? Is he further aware, however, that during the four years he mentioned there has been a steady increase in the rents which extortionate and rapacious landlords—some of them sit opposite—have taken out of the farmer; and that the time has come for an immediate consideration to prevent the money going into the pockets of parasitical landlords, especially in Scotland—the large landowners, some of whom decorate the benches opposite?

Mr. Hughes: I am quite sure that my announcement will give confidence to the small farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency. The last part of his supplementary question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Speaking for perhaps the largest food-producing constituency in the country, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that he will do any good by such a statement as we have just had, when what the farmers in the milk-producing areas want is a ban on the importation of milk products? If he could only get that done, and have a little less talk, those in the industry will be more satisfied.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are quotas on butter, and that we are at present in consultation with our overseas cheese suppliers.

Mr. Hawkins: Perhaps the Minister appreciates that we had some difficulty in hearing the full content of his statement. Can he give one concrete example of how my farmers in Norfolk will be given greater confidence for increased production during the coming year?

Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find when he next meets his farmers, after they have read my statement, that they have been given confidence by it.

Mr. Maude: Would the right hon. Gentleman realise that the farmers will have no confidence in his exhortations about future import savings unless he gives them a chance to save more imports now by doing something about dumped


imports of dairy products? Will he stop consulting, and do something?

Mr. Hughes: That, with respect, is the kind of generalisation which does a great deal of harm. I have just pointed out that there are quotas on butter, and since I made my announcement on 8th August about voluntary restraint on cheese the cheese market has been stabilised. We are continuing to try to get an arrangement about it, and the method we are adopting in respect of cheese is the quickest possible method to get results.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must restrain their enthusiams. We have no Question before the House. I have no doubt that the House will find other opportunities of debating the statement which has just been made.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Patrick Michael Ernest David McNair-Wilson, esquire, for New Forest.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AIRPORTS)

4.2 p.m

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1623), dated 14th October, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October in the last session of Parliament, be annulled.
The Order is thoroughly bad. Stripped of its smokescreen of legal verbiage, its purpose can be summarised simply. It is to give certain public authorities, notably the British airports Authority, power to carry out important development without regard to the normal planning procedures. Basically, therefore, what we are discussing is the further extension of the arbitrary power of the Government and nationalised undertakings to override and disregard the laws that apply to the rest of the community. We are discussing a striking illustration of what has gone wrong in our society and with our system of government. It is that we have exchanged the protection of the rule of law—the guarantee of individual rights under the law by independent courts—for a complex system of administrative law that is changed from day to day at the whim of the Government.
If the Minister does not agree this afternoon to withdraw the Order, that will be another indication that the House is no longer functioning as the protector of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary acts of the Executive. The Government must be well aware by now of the grave public anxieties that have been aroused by the Order, and of the strength of the representations made by the local planning authorities, the local authority associations, the Greater London Council, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and many other organisations.
Their immediate cause for concern is perfectly clear and perfectly justified. It is that the Order intends that a general planning permission should be given for any development of an airport—with the exception of the construction or extension of runways—which is required in connection with the movement of aircraft or the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharge or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at an aerodrome. That will cover most buildings that one can think of at any airport.
In other words, the Order is designed ot give the British Airports Authority the right to go ahead with pretty well any development it likes, except the construction and extension of runways, without any regard for planning considerations, such as what the effect of that development will be on employment, housing, traffic or noise problems in the vicinity of the airport.
It will be no good the Minister saying, as he may, that the Order simply puts the British Airports Authority in the same position as other statutory undertakings have been in for some years. In practice it will go far wider. Whether other undertakings should have that privileged position is something we might profitably look at another time. No one can doubt that proposed developments by the British Airports Authority are calculated to have a considerably more marked effect on the lives of the people living in the areas affected than likely developments of other statutory undertakings.
No one knows this better than the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), who, from this side of the House, on numerous occasions, raised the problems of noise at London Airport. What he and his committee on public participation in planning think about all this I hesitate to guess.
The Minister has virtually admitted that there will be a marked effect. Let me read from Circular 55/68, dated 31st October this year, which explains the Order. Paragraph 3 says:
The Ministers and the British Airports Authority recognise that development at an airport may well have a marked effect on other planning proposals for the area,"—

The House will note the use of the phrase "marked effect"; it is no more than the truth of the matter. The paragraph adds later:
The authority has therefore given the following written undertaking to the Ministers:—
'The British Airports Authority recognise that development at an airport can have a marked effect on the amenity of adjoining land, and on other planning proposals for the area. It therefore gives this undertaking that, notwithstanding the permission granted by the amending order, it will consult with the local planning authority before carrying out any development for which permission is given by that order, save in the case of minor works urgently needed to enable the airport to function efficiently.'
Paragraph 4 refers to the planning authorities having an opportunity to comment on the development proposed. This is not good enough. It is not sufficient for the local planning authorities just to have the right to comment. I do not doubt, and nobody on this side of the House doubts, the good faith of the British Airports Authority, but it must be recognised that it has its own statutory duty under the 1965 Act to have regard primarily to the efficient running of the airport. It is concerned with commercial considerations. That is its business, and no one will complain about that, provided it is prepared to submit its proposals to the ordinary planning process and to demonstrate that what it proposes is in the general public interest, which must involve consideration of the wider planning aspects.
I am always a little nervous of proposals for discussions between two parties when one of them knows right from the start that however good the case put up by the other side he can decide the issue in his own favour, and, indeed, might almost have a statutory duty so to do, looking at the matter simply from the British Airports Authority's point of view. If discussions are to start on an equal basis, there must be provision for appeal to the courts or the Minister.
As the Minister well knows, the Authority at present enjoys the Crown's general exemption from planning control. Instead, developments are the subject of consultation between the Authority and the local planning authorities under the procedure laid down in Circular 100, which was issued as long ago as December, 1950. Its procedure provides for the reference of disputes or differences to the


Minister. In those circumstances, it is fair to say that the locally-elected planning authorities have been able to enter into discussions on a more or less equal basis, and it can be said that the system has worked tolerably well.
Our complaint about the Order is that it will serve only to undermine quite needlessly public confidence in the whole operation of the planning machinery. If the British Airports Authority can make its case for its development in the ordinary and proper way, no one can complain. The Minister must explain why it cannot be done in the manner to which we have become accustomed.
The Minister can be in no doubt about the anxiety which has been caused to residents around Stansted and other airports in recent weeks. It appears to us that the Government have totally disregarded the scale of possible future airport development. Quite apart from the whole question of the siting of new major airports, or the extension or building of new runways, serious questions can arise. It has been suggested that with existing runways, the traffic at Stansted can be expanded extensively, perhaps as much as fivefold. The traffic at many other airports can also be expanded extensively in the same way.
I do not want again to go over all the ground that we traversed in the Stansted debate on 29th June last year, except to say that the outcome of that affair should have deterred the Government from trying to override public opinion in these matters. It is clear from the way in which the Government have persisted in putting forward the Order that they are not as sensitive as they should be to public opinion in these matters.
As an editorial in The Times on 29th October this year said, in commenting on the Order:
Stansted comes first to mind.
In a letter to The Times, in which he denied that the rapid expansion of activity at Stansted implied any intention to convert it into the third London airport by backstairs methods while the Roskill Commission was sitting, Mr. Peter Masefield, Chairman of the Authority, reminded readers that
any necessary extension to the interim terminal during this time will of course be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.

The Times went on to say:
What he did not say, and perhaps did not know, was that the provisions of that Act were about to be altered in a way which considerably reduces their effectiveness.
It may be that he did not think it necessary to have them altered in this way.
I note, and the whole House will welcome, the Minister's assurance in his statement on 29th October that the Order will not be used to undermine the Roskill Commission or to undertake major de-developments at Stansted. What worries us on this side, however, is that whatever may be the Minister's good intentions, there is no doubt that the Order gives power to do this. That is why we so strongly dispute its desirability. Why take unnecessary powers if it is not intended to use them and if it is not necessary to have them? The Minister should be perfectly clear that in this case the public deeply and bitterly resent the way in which the Government have proceeded in this matter.
After all our previous discussions on town and country planning during the last year or two, I had hoped that whatever our political differences might be the Labour Party at least shared our desire to see the general public brought into closer consultation about planning development generally. Surely the Minister remembers that in all our debates on the Town and Country Planning Bill there was a unanimous feeling that, because planning is essentially concerned with providing benefits for people, ways and means had to be found of ensuring that people had their rights respected and that they would be able to contribute to the discussion of new developments.
We have locally-elected local planning authorities representing the views of local people. Why should they be cut off, as the Order proposes, from major decisions such as the development of airports by arbitrary action by the Government or by an authority appointed by the Government?
Our feeling on this side is that the fundamental weakness of the Government's whole planning policy, which the Order underlines, is that they simply do not appear to understand the relationship between economic and physical planning. They seem to have a total lack


of understanding of the importance of the quality of environment or the need to relate the economic and physical measures, of the sort which an airport authority might carry out, to the social forces which are at work in the community and which have to be respected.
I have no doubt that there is a need for a Minister for Planning and Land in some form or another, but not simply because another Department has disappeared. Whatever may be the case for a Minister for Land and Natural Resources, which the Prime Minister first established, then abolished and has now half-restored, there is no sense in a situation in which the Minister for Planning and Land is made subordinate to the Minister responsible for tactical day-to-day decisions.
It is the Minister for Planning and Land who should be considered concerned with these strategic matters. It will be interesting to hear from the new Minister how he interprets his rôle in the scheme of things, but, unfortunately, we will not be doing so today. Perhaps he has been prudently kept out of the batting order.
It is extremely ironic, to say the least, that only last week, on 7th November, the Minister of Housing and Local Government sent out a circular in which he urged local authorities to direct some of their publicity activities towards promoting higher standards of public behaviour in the matter of noise and also urged them to exercise stricter control over noisy tools and plant. They can deal with noisy tools and plant but not, apparently, with the much more important matter of airports.
That circular followed the final Report of the Committee on the Problem of Noise. But what is the good of having a Committee on the Problem of Noise to make representations designed to help planning authorities to control noise and then to deny it a say on development at airports, which raises the question of noise in probably its most acute form?
For that matter, what is the use of having these Constitutional Commissions or Committees on Public Participation in Planning and then introducing an Order of this kind which deliberately cuts down public participation? While all these stage armies of paper tigers who serve

on these multifarious advisory bodies are leisurely employed in hitting all these balls into the long grass, the Government continue the steady progress, which they have made ever since they took office, of widening the gap between themselves and the people they seek to govern.
In our view, the Minister should, here and now, agree to withdraw the Order and take no further action. If he cannot accept that, at least he should agree to withdraw the Order and amend it so that we ensure that planning permission is still required for any development which would be likely materially to affect the surrounding areas by reason of increased traffic, noise or employment. These are the relevant factors. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, I shall certainly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to press this matter to a Division this evening.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that this debate ends at round about 7 o'clock and that there are four Front Benchers taking part in it. If we are to get a representative cross-section of the House, it will help if right hon. and hon. Members speak briefly.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I think that I should begin by explaining that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Land would normally be taking this debate, as he is responsible under my general supervision for planning and land policy, but as I had been involved in all the previous discussions and debates about Stansted, and as my good faith and that of some of my other right hon. Friends has been called into question because of the laying of the Order, I thought it right that I should take part in the debate today.
I fully take your point, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little time. I will do my best to give the general background to the Order and to deal with the special position of Stansted as briefly as possible. I hope to persuade the House that the fears that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has expressed are without justification.
Parliament decided in 1965 that the British Airports Authority should be set up and should have the status of statutory undertaker. The House will know that


we have recently spent a great deal of time discussing the position of statutory undertakers under planning law and that the Government have agreed to a substantial diminution in the privileges which they have enjoyed for many years. I had hoped to have heard a tribute paid by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that.
Nobody could seriously contend that statutory undertakers should not enjoy some measure of freedom from day-today planning control within areas already committed to their purposes, but not the very wide powers that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described. All statutory undertakers have this right and the range of the development covered depends on the nature and the function of the undertaking.
The purpose of this amendment Order is to put the British Airports Authority into broadly the same position as other statutory undertakers. It enables the Authority to carry out development for providing services and facilities needed for the operation of its airports and to put up buildings required in connection with the movement or maintenance of aircraft or the movement of passengers and goods. There are many things it does not cover—for example, runways, buildings which are not operational to their airport, and development by lessees of the Authority, such as the airlines.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Could the Minister help the House by suggesting the kind of building to which he has just referred and which is non-operational?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in patience, he will find that I come to that later in what I have to say. I want to get through this as quickly as possible, because I know that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
The British Airports Authority has undertaken to consult the planning authority about development other than urgent minor development carried out under the Order. I will come back to this in more detail later. I think that this is the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
The immediate effect of this consultation will be to bring to the notice of the

planning authority any development it may regard as unwelcome and enable it to seek to bring it under specific control by seeking the Minister's confirmation of a direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order. I cannot undertake to approve any direction which may be submitted, but if consultation has failed to produce an agreed solution I would certainly approach any such direction with considerable sympathy and take into account the impact of airport development on the surrounding area.
In all this the British Airports Authority is put on the same footing as other statutory undertakers, against a statutory background recently considered and amended by Parliament.
What is special to the British Airports Authority is the type of development covered by the Order. It is only fair to say, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us, that the local authority associations have expressed strong views about it. The A.M.C. was opposed to any further concessions to statutory undertakers, while the County Councils Association was concerned that the Order removed from the local authority control over developments at an airport which might have a substantial impact on the surrounding area, particularly in generating traffic, employment and noise. The Association pressed, in fact, for the continuation of the consultation arrangements under Circular 100 which were used when the Ministry of Aviation owned these airports.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in saying that Circular 100 applies now. It ceased to operate when the British Airports Authority took over the airports from the Ministry of Aviation.
It is a fair point to make that consultation was one of the demands made by the associations; and consultation is what has been provided, coupled with the long-stop of the Article 4 direction. On any planning application or appeal which follows a direction, I can order an inquiry. However, today I accept that the associations would have liked a much more restricted Order.
As to the range of matters covered by the Order—I know that my hon. Friend


the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) are very closely interested in this—I think it essential to bear in mind the nature of the activity we are dealing with. I agree that substantial increases in the scale of activity at a major airport is a matter in which the planning authority must properly be concerned, but to attempt to deal with problems of this nature by requiring the British Airports Authority to go through the formal mechanics of making a planning application for buildings it wants to erect within its established airfields seems to me to be very wide of the mark.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Why?

Mr. Greenwood: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to say. For one thing, there are many factors other than the erection of buildings which govern the level of traffic at an airport. One of the most important—runways—is specifically excluded from the Order. More important, these wide-ranging matters are much more suitably and satisfactorily dealt with by means of consultation well in advance of detailed proposals to erect buildings—consultations which can and should bring in, not only the planning authority and the British Airports Authority, but all the Government Departments concerned—for example, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Transport, and my own Department.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the British Airports Authority has made it quite clear that the only limiting factor to extending the activity at Stansted up to 150,000 movements per year is lack of terminal facilities, which the Authority can now build under this Order without any planning permission whatever?

Mr. Greenwood: Questions of air traffic will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he winds up the debate. I myself will deal with some of the assurances that the British Airports Authority has given during the course of the last few weeks. This, as I was describing, is what we have made possible through the new consultation arrangements which are part of this package.
Nevertheless, we amended the draft Order in two important respects before bringing it before the House. We have excluded runways, even extensions to existing runways, so that such proposals would always require specific planning permission. We have totally excluded development by lessees of the British Airports Authority—mainly the airlines—at its airports. These works by lessees might include such major developments as maintenance hangars, workshops and freight terminals, which can give rise to substantial increases in employment and traffic. In this respect, the amending Order is narrower than corresponding provisions for certain other statutory undertakers.
In short, the Government believe that there is a clear case for making an Order such as this, to enable the British Airports Authority to get on with its operations without unnecessary formality. The exact scope of Orders of this kind can obviously be a matter for argument; but once Parliament has set up an organisation of this kind, and determined its status, it is the responsibility of Ministers to propose those arrangements which seem to them to be right.
Taking as a whole the contents of the Order, the possibility of directions restricting its scope if the need should arise, and the extensive consultation arrangements, I believe that we have a fair and workable proposition which the House can approve.
I have already briefly referred to the undertaking about consultation which the British Airports Authority has given, and I think that the House will wish to have the full text. It is as follows:
The British Airports Authority recognises that development as an airport can have a marked effect on the amenity of adjoining land, and on other planning proposals for the area. It therefore gives this undertaking that, notwithstanding the permission granted by the amending Order, it will consult with the local planning authority before carrying out any development for which permission is given by that Order, save in the case of minor works urgently needed to enable the airport to function efficiently.

Mr. John Rankin: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the British Airports Authority now extends into Scotland, covering Edinburgh and Prestwick. Do I take it that what he is saying applies to those two airports?

Mr. Greenwood: I am surprised that my hon. Friend, who is so well acquainted with Scottish affairs, should not have realised that this Order does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: I know that—that is what I am asking.

Mr. Greenwood: This is a matter which my hon. Friend must take up in due course with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Greenwood: I must get on. This is not an Order applying to Scotland. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend later.
This is a very far-reaching undertaking, and since then the authority has made it clear to me that it would be willing to give a further assurance, in response to a suggestion from one of the local authority associations, that consultations should start at the earliest possible date, and that on final reference to the local planning authority it should be given two months in which to comment, save in exceptional cases of urgency. This is the time for consultation allowed under Circular 100 procedure.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: What happens when there is disagreement after consultations?

Mr. Greenwood: Then the matter goes to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself.
So far, I have been discussing the Order in general terms. I now turn to its application to Stansted, about which there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. When the Order was laid it was misconstrued—

Mr. Rippon: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that it comes, under the Order, to himself and the President of the Board of Trade in the event of a dispute?

Mr. Greenwood: I was, at that stage, referring to Stansted, which I understood was the airport the hon. Gentleman had in mind. The normal procedure which I described will apply there.

Mr. Rippon: What is the normal procedure under this Order? It is not to

come to the right hon. Gentleman or the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Greenwood: It is perfectly clear in the Order. I must not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman into this.
As I was saying, when the Order was laid it was misconstrued as a measure which would enable the British Airports Authority to build up Stansted into a third London airport by back-door methods. I have already categorically denied that this is the case and this denial was repeated in another place by the Government spokesman last Wednesday.
Let me spell out in detail the various safeguards which would prevent this happening. Some of them are of general application, and I have touched on them already. Some are specifically related to Stansted in the period before the Roskill Commission reports.
First, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would not authorise substantial capital expenditure involved in other than minor development at Stansted. Second, the Airports Authority has given assurances that there is neither the need, nor the intention, to carry out other than minor development pending the Roskill report. Third, the Authority will consult the planning authority in the manner I have described, and if there should be disagreement the planning authority could make an Article 4 direction. Fourth, if a direction were made and permission refused on an application, my right hon. Friend and I could consider the merits of the development.
The point has been made that if we were to refuse, compensation could be claimed by the Authority. This is so, and in this respect statutory undertakers are in the same position as a private individual or an industrialist who loses the right to carry out permitted development under the General Development Order. But there is the further important safeguard in that my right hon. Friend and I could, under Section 170(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, direct that the compensation provisions should not apply.
Fifth—and this is a new assurance I have received within the last few days—the Authority has in any event undertaken not to claim such compensation pending the Roskill report. Sixth, if the


airlines seek to carry out development such as the erection of hangars, good terminals, etc., they will be subject to full planning control. They will be unlikely, in any case, to risk much capital investment at Stansted pending the report.
I have not spoken at great length, because our time is limited and I know that there are many hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak. My hon. Friend who will be winding up for the Government will deal with matters that I have not covered, including the level of air traffic at Stansted.
I will end by repeating that the fears that have been expressed about this Order, though understandable, are without foundation. I think that I have demonstrated that there is no possibility of large-scale development slipping through on the nod at Stansted while the Roskill Commission is sitting.
As to the more general application of the Order, I think that we have on this occasion combined a reasonable degree of freedom from day-to-day control with a new and valuable system of advance consultation which will bring the local planning authorities into the picture more effectively than they are at present. For these reasons, I commend the Order to the House.

Mr. Corfield: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask a question? He said the erection of hangars, and so on, will come under the ordinary planning control as it is at present. Surely a hangar is a building required in connection with the improvement or maintenance of aircraft, and that most certainly would not come under that heading.

Mr. Greenwood: What I was referring to at that stage was the buildings for which the lessees are responsible. I was referring to the airline's hangars and other buildings which were purely the concern of the airlines.

4.36 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the aspect of Stansted Airport and the general planning aspect. I have a constituency interest in the first, and an interest in the second deriving from some study of and preoccupation

with matters of town planning now extending for over 30 years. As a result, I am bound to say that I have found the Minister's defence of his position singularly unconvincing.
Since hearing him, I add a third interest, that of a constitutionalist. I think, and I hope that I will carry the House with me in this, that it is always undesirable to give powers on the basis that they will be qualified by undertakings not to use them, or not to use them in certain circumstances. Powers so qualified by undertakings, which will be unenforceable, are in the nature of things probably imprecise and difficult to interpret. It is a wrong and unsatisfactory way of legislating, and I find it a disturbing feature of the right hon. Gentleman's observations.
I will deal briefly with the background of the matter from the aspect of town planning law and practice. As the House will know, planning permission can be of two kinds—planning permission given by a local planning authority in response to an application, or planning permission known as permitted development, either by a Special Development Order or a General Development Order under Section 14 of the 1962 Act. That is the position for those types of development for which planning permission is required at all. Before 1965, airports fell into the happy position of being immune from planning control, by reason of the constitutional principle of the Crown not being bound by Statute.
It was in those days, of course, that the Circular 100 1950 procedure applied. Even so, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will certainly recall, since we were engaged in it together—the setting up of Gatwick Airport was preceded by a most searching, penetrating and exhaustive inquiry.
We are concerned here not with a Special Development Order, but with the General Development Order. Whereas Special Development Orders are rare, ad hoc instruments for individual developments of particular importance, the basis of the General Development Order, which we are here amending, is that it is a single, continuing, comprehensive Order relating not to individual development, but to classes of development.
We have referred to Article 3, which says:
Subject to the subsequent provisions of this order, development of any class specified in schedule 1 to this order is permitted by this order and may be undertaken…without the permission of the local planning authority or the Minister.
It is true that this is subject to what is called an Article 4 direction, to which the Minister referred. He can "claw it back" from the category of permitted development. But we should remember that this remedy, on which he builds so much, is at best discretionary, and the possibility of the protection of an Article 4 direction in the context of this airport development is at best a cold comfort, because there is nothing which persons affected would be able to do to compel a direction. They would be at the mercy of the Minister, under whose unfettered discretion an Article 4 direction would remain.
The other safeguard which he suggests is consultation, but, of course, the right to be consulted is of very little value if the body doing the consultation is entitled to have its own way in the end, come what may. So I find both of the Minister's suggested safeguards illusory and tenuous to a degree. I further say that it is quite clear that on any objective analysis of the General Development Order, this does not fit.
There are 23 classes of permitted development within the Order, and I hasten to add that I do not intend to go through them all—

Mr. Oscar Murton: Why not?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: For two reasons—first, because it would take up time, and, second, because, happily, it is possible, without going through them, to identify the distinguishing characteristics of the type of development with which they deal. These characteristics are three. Having identified them, we can then see which of them, if any, are present in the context of this development.
The first characteristic is that the permitted developments should be ancillary in character, like extensions to existing buildings and maintenance operations. The second is that they should be limited in their impact on the public. The third is that they should be of a

general nature, such that their frequency would clog up the ordinary machinery of town planning administration if dealt with by the normal procedure.
Those are the three characteristics and it is obvious that, where they exist, no harm can be done by including them within the category of permitted development. But the converse, of course, is that, if those tests are not satisfied, and particularly if none of them is satisfied, the development should not be given the privilege of inclusion in the category of permitted development, with its consequential immunity from planning control. It is surely apparent that none of these characteristics is satisfied in the case of this development.
This development clearly is not ancillary. The words of the Order are wide. The limitation in the Order in regard to buildings, to which also the Minister attaches importance, can be only as effective as the excepting provisions of the Order themselves are wide and effective. But the excepting provision in the Order is substantially eroded by the exception to the exception.
It is said, in effect, "You may not put up buildings, as such, as permitted development, but you may put up buildings if they are required in connection with the movement or maintenance of aircraft, etc." In other words, "You may not put up the sort of buildings you probably would not want to put up anyway in order to expand your airport, but you may put up the buildings that you would want to put up for that purpose."
We need not spend many words on the second test. This development would certainly not be limited in its impact on the public. No development has so great an impact in terms of amenity, noise and the like, and few, if any, have so much impact in terms of traffic congestion and increased demand for housing and public services. On the third test, obviously this type of development is not so general and frequent that it can be properly placed in a General Development Order. So far from being general and frequent, it is particular and occasional, but, when it does arise, so far from being routine, it is of vital local, and probably national, importance.
Therefore, we come to the inescapable conclusion that this development satisfies


none of those tests. So we are left with the question, that being so; why is the Order being introduced? I do not want to entertain suspicions either of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very old personal friend, or of the British Airports Authority, but it must be faced that their conduct raises questions and demands explanations.
Why are such powers sought so illogically and so inappropriately if not designed for an undisclosed purpose? If there is an undisclosed purpose, what could it be except to expand the existing airport so as effectively to pre-empt the judgment of the Roskill Commission? These are the thoughts and doubts which have come to the minds of many of my constituents—and they are not by nature suspicious people—and of the local authorities who represent them, who are not suspicious, either. These doubts and misgivings are not to be resolved or dispelled by unenforceable undertakings or Ministerial generalisations. They will be dissolved only by the negativing of this Order, which is untimely, inappropriate, detrimental, disingenuous and dangerous, and I ask the House to treat it accordingly.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: It is perfectly right that we should inquire into the operation of this Order. I take no exception to some of the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), but it was foolish of the Opposition to choose the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) to introduce this debate.
It is singularly inappropriate that we should have had this wide-ranging general attack of principle on the matters concerned in the Order and the whole position of statutory authorities—as this is what it came to—when the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that he shares responsibility for the position of statutory undertakings and their privileged position, and that it is this Government who have to some extent weakened the position of statutory undertakings, with no particular help from him.
It is a matter of some interest that several of his hon. Friends, when discussing in Committee the position of

statutory undertakings, should, in a very cool and useful discussion, have made the case for some of the statutory undertakings and made it clear that they would not wish to see their special powers necessarily interfered with.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham made a windy, empty speech which was wholly inappropriate to the subject. I recognise the value and importance of challenging some items in the Order, but it was extraordinary for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a generalised attack on the whole situation without, at the same time, referring to the major alterations which the Labour Government have made as a result of recent legislation. His speech was utter hypocrisy and lacked knowledge of the subject, not necessarily for the first time.
Having said that, it is still true that many people are concerned about the introduction of the Order, particularly at a time when the modifications made in the powers of statutory undertakings have been welcomed. Recent legislation has modified these powers and it therefore seems somewhat illogical that we should be giving what one might call some cause for anxiety for the situation, particularly when there is evidence of our desire to challenge the position of statutory authorities.
I understand that the Association of Municipal Corporations and other bodies accept that airport authorities, like other statutory authorities, should have certain rights to enable them to take action without going through the normal planning procedures of local authorities for what can be regarded as urgently required minor works for the efficient operation of their airports. Be that as it may, the argument is simply whether or not the Order goes further than providing for necessary operational minor alterations.
Some parts of the Order—particularly those concerning the maintenance of buildings, runways, taxi-ways, aprons, and so on—are unobjectionable. For other parts, however, assurances should be given, particularly on the constructional side. The assurances given by the British Airports Authority have been helpful and I see no reason why that Authority should not have rights of action comparable with those granted to other statutory authorities.
I do not see why the Authority should be in a disadvantageous position compared with other statutory authorities, leaving aside the anxieties which have been aroused over Stansted. The fault over this can in part be laid at the door of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because their long delays caused this miserable situation to arise.
I therefore still require certain assurances about the way in which these undertakings will be carried out. Would it not have been better to have made the necessary provision in the Order, and so to have made the position clear?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman is on our side. He is asking his right hon. Friend for certain assurances which are at present not available. He is saying that if they are not satisfactory, they should be written into the Order.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am waiting to be convinced. I pointed out that large sections of the Order are unobjectionable. There is some doubt about one part of it, and I believe that my doubts can be cleared up.
In his general, wide ranging attack, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham raised the whole question of the quality of environment. In an extraordinarily generalised statement, he said that the Government were not concerned with this. It should be patently obvious, as a result of a range of recent legislation, that the Labour Party has done far more in its short period in office than the Conservatives ever achieved to overcome these problems—indeed, to put right some of the disasters perpetrated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The mess and dereliction they left revealed, before we got to work, that practically nothing was done about this problem while they were in office. It was, therefore, tasteless and stupid of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have raised the whole matter.
Similarly, on the question of aircraft noise, the Labour Government have an excellent record, not only for their achievements at home but for the agreements they are seeking to make throughout Western Europe. I have had the opportunity of discussing this problem with those responsible for most of the main airports in Western Europe. There

is no doubt that Britain has both stimulated research and been active in securing and working for international agreements. The record of Her Majesty's Government in this matter is better than that of any other Western European Government.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I should, perhaps, apologise for once again bringing the affairs of my constituency before the House. I wish to make it clear at the outset, however, that I oppose the Order on general principles as well as on purely local grounds.
I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) will accept that I am not making a political point when I say that I have for some time been worried about the general exemptions of statutory undertakers from the normal planning laws, certainly since the Abingdon gasholder case. I accept that the legislation passed last Session has gone a long way towards helping in this matter, but it would have been better if all planning problems had been put on an equal footing. Difficult though this would have been—leaving aside the question of purely minor works, which it would have been annoying for statutory authorities to raise through the rigmarole of obtaining planning permission—it would have been beneficial.
The Order is so widely drawn that it needs a great amount of justification. In view of the effect that an airport is bound to have on the surrounding countryside, in addition to the whole question of not only the physical but the economic planning of a whole area, we have not had that justification for the Order, which goes further than any other permission given to any other statutory undertaker except one; it is broadly comparable with that given to dock undertakers. Of course, the noise problem does not arise in the case of docks as it does in the case of airports, for by their very nature docks cannot be surrounded by residents whereas airports are surrounded by people living in the area.
In the case of railways, buildings of this type are permitted only when they are within the interior area of the railway itself and other undertakers such as gas, water and electricity have to seek permission for the erection or material


reconstruction of buildings. What the Minister or the Airports Authority is asking us to do is to give them a much wider power than is given to any statutory undertaker save one and that one does not have the particular drawbacks from a planning point of view that an airport has.
I rather got the impression that the Minister was asking us to accept the Order with the verbal undertakings he was prepared to give in the debate. I share the reservations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). This is not the way we should proceed. I have known the Minister for many years and I like and respect him. Of course, he will see that these undertakings are accepted, but Ministers come and go while the British Airports Authority goes on for ever—or for a very long time. I am not quite sure whether the undertakings given by the Minister or by the Authority will necessarily be the last word in the matter.
We have had experience with the British Airports Authority which does not necessarily lead us to believe that the Authority is being wholly open about what is going on. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) referred to a letter written to The Times by the Chairman of the Airports Authority, Mr. Peter Masefield, on 14th September, in which he sought to allay anxiety about what was then going on at Stansted. This was before we knew about this Order. It had become clear in the summer that very considerable traffic build-up was going on at Stansted. A number of my constituents were worried that this appeared to be an attempt to create a third London airport by the back door.
This anxiety was conveyed to The Times, which published a leading article headed, "Cheating at Stansted". Mr. Masefield wrote a long letter disclaiming that this could be the case. He said:
By the time that a decision may be expected on the site for a third London airport, there is no prospect that the existing runway at Stansted will attain anywhere near its theoretical capacity of 150,000 movements a year. Any necessary extensions to the interim terminal, during this time, will of course be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.
That was on 14th September, but two months before—we have this from his

own evidence to the Roskill Commission—on 9th July, he had already written to the right hon. Gentleman, or his Authority had, accepting that if this Order was to be made certain undertakings would have to be given. He knew on 14th September that he would not be subject to the normal procedures of the Town and Country Planning Act, but would get exceptions of the kind which would enable him to undertake developments of a very considerable nature.
It is important that we should understand the size of this development. The restriction on flying at Stansted has nothing to do with the runway. The exclusion of the runway from this Order so far as Stansted is concerned makes very little difference. The runway is there. This has been the trouble from the start, the trouble for both Governments. I have always been careful not to make any special point against either Government. The fault was originally made by the Conservative Government and it was compounded by the present Government. As Mr. Masefield said in his evidence to the Roskill Commission, the difficulty is shortage of terminal buildings.
I quote from the transcript of the evidence. Mr. Justice Roskill asked him:
I mentioned earlier that your 1st October lecture showed Stansted as having handled about 33,000 aircraft movements in 1967, and this morning you gave us a slightly higher figure for the quarter ending 30th September, 1968. What is the present theoretical maximum of Stansted?
The reply was:
The theoretical capacity of the runway is the same as for any other runway. It is 32 s.c.r. per hour, which equates over a year to a theoretical total of about 150,000 movements per annum. That is the theoretical capacity, from a runway point of view. But it is no good having a runway without associated terminal facilities. 
That is the whole point. This is what is worrying us in the area. The Authority does not want the runway; it wants terminal facilities. I have told my constituents again and again during the period before the President of the Board of Trade granted us the Roskill inquiry that if we were to get that inquiry it would inevitably mean that there would be a traffic build-up at Stansted and Stansted would have to be used in the interim. What we wanted to be assured


of was that the traffic build-up would be so limited that it would not be possible at a later stage to come to the Government and to say, "Our capacity is so great that we cannot go anywhere else." Under this Order that is precisely what the Authority will be able to do.
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's undertakings that this is not what they intend to do at this moment, but we do not know how long the Roskill inquiry will sit and what the air traffic pattern will be. It would have been much better if future development at Stansted had not been subject just to undertakings but if by statutory arrangement it had to be decided by negotiation between the Airports Authority and the local authority. I do not think Mr. Masefield could deny that the British Airports Authority has absolutely no complaint whatever against the local authorities about planning permission. When the Authority wanted to build the temporary terminal, Essex County Council was only too glad to give it permission.
Anyone who has been to the airport knows that it is a sort of aeronautical slum with Nissen huts which are falling down. I hope that the Minister of State will visit it and will see the buildings which are crumbling. Of course, there have to be terminal facilities and the local authority had to give permission. Of course, if the Airports Authority can make out a genuine case for further development it has only to go to the local authority and permission will be given as it has been in the past.
When we read, in the annual report of the British Airports Authority, that the temporary terminal is
a simple but practical building which will be capable of easy extension if growth of traffic justifies it
we get a little alarmed. It means that the Authority can go on adding to it steadily throughout the time and there is no way of stopping it except by an Article 4 direction. The problem about an Article 4 direction is that only the Minister can initiate it and there is the question of compensation.
I welcome what the Minister said about compensation. That is good news. We have had to spend too much already in the area defending ourselves without

the prospect of more compensation hanging over us, but it would have been very much better if the British Airports Authority actually needs the Order for purposes other than the development of Stansted—and we have heard nothing so far about Heathrow or Gatwick, the only other airports which can be affected because Scotland is excluded—if the Authority had said so. Then everyone would know what the Authority wants. The whole question of Stansted is in a sense sub judice, with the Roskill Commission sitting. If the Authority needed an Order of this kind it would have been better to exclude Stansted altogether. Then none of these suspicions would have arisen.
The Minister admitted today that there were understandable suspicions about Stansted. His noble Friend, last week, was not quite so charitable, for he said that the suspicions were "unwarranted". Traffic has been building up and the Airports Authority says that it is to do all-the-year-round training flights. Night training flights are the worst of all for my constituents. This sort of thing is building up the whole time. It is quite understandable that my constituents should have had suspicions about this Order, particularly because it appeared during the Recess and no one knew that it was coming and it was apparently in glaring opposition to the letter written to The Times by the Chairman of the Authority.
For that reason, on general and local ground, this Order is wrong and I very much hope that the House will reject it.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: Many of the fears which have been voiced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) are felt also by many of my constituents, irrespective of party political allegiance. Although I listened with care to the Minister's statement, it did not dispel all the concern which is felt locally.
None the less, I welcome what he said today and in his statement of 29th October. In particular, I welcome his categorical denial that the British Airports Authority would, as a result of this Order, be able to by-pass the Roskill Commission. Furthermore, I accept that the powers given by this Order to the Authority to develop an airport are less than


those originally envisaged in the Ministry's proposals in 1966. At that time there was no specific limitation on the construction or extension of runways, and no limitation on development by lessees.
Despite these statements and these restrictions, in my view the powers given to the Authority are still excessive. In saying this, I am not motivated by the sentiments of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) against nationalised industries. My view on nationalised industries is completely different from his.
The powers to be granted are powers to erect buildings
…required in connection with the movement or maintenance of aircraft or with the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharge or transport of passengers, livestock or goods…".
Will the hon. Gentleman, in winding up, say what other buildings of real importance are required? It appears to me that under this Order the majority of the buildings which would be required could be developed without the permission of the local authority.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden has already referred to the statement made by Mr. Peter Masefield that the existing constraint at Stansted is the terminal building capacity which is very small. If sufficient terminal capacity expansion could take place, theoretically Stansted could be developed to a level of activity to that at Gatwick. If this is not correct I hope that my hon. Friend will say so. It is, therefore, only natural that many people should have the fears which are today being voiced.
Although lessees are to be restricted by by Order, the Authority could overcome this restriction by itself carrying out the development of certain buildings and thereafter transferring them to lessees. I can see nothing to prevent this happening. If this is not so, I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear.
Considerable powers are being transferred to the Authority, and considerable rights and powers are being taken away from the local planning authority. This is a matter of concern. My right hon. Friend has spoken of the safeguards provided for Stansted. He said that the Authority will consult with the local planning authority, but, as has already been pointed out, the right of consultation is

not equivalent to the right which exists at present.
My right hon. Friend said that the planning authority has the right to submit to the Minister for confirmation a direction under the Order requiring the Authority to seek a specific planning permission if development inappropriate to the proceedings before the Roskill Commission is suggested. But the Ministry is not regarded by local people as always being in sympathy with the views and fears which have been expressed. It could well be that in future the Ministry might take a different view of a development from that taken by the local authority.
We are today seeing a considerable move towards centralised power, and this trend prevails right through our society. I know that local democracy is very often inconvenient not only to nationalised industries but also to private industrial concerns. While I am an enthusiast for the centralisation of powers which must be centralised, I believe that it is necessary to keep a close watch all the way through to ensure that decisions which can be taken locally are taken at that level. I do not believe that the case has been made out for transferring the right of decision-making from the locality to the centre on the issue we are debating today and we should consider the matter further before voting for the Order.
The British Airports Authority has shown a singular lack of appreciation of the requirements of local planning. I need only refer to the report of the Inquiry which was made by Mr. G. B. Blake. I do not apologise for quoting what has been quoted on many occasions, even on the Floor of the House. At that time he said:
It would be a calamity for the neighbourhood if a major airport were placed at Stansted. Such a decision could only be justified by national necessity. Necessity was not proved by evidence at the Inquiry.
Despite this, the Authority was quite prepared to go ahead. We all recognise the great qualities of the Chairman of that Authority; his iron will and determination to ride roughshod over local planning considerations are widely known. He has a job to do, the importance of which I recognise, but we in this House should consider carefully whether


it is right to give the powers contained in the Order to an Authority which has shown such scant consideration for local planning considerations.
The Airports Authority, in its latest report, states that the general increase in air traffic activity will result in further business for Stansted, and that the airport must be developed within its existing boundaries to meet this need. If air traffic develops more rapidly than is expected, tremendous pressure will be brought to bear to go ahead and to build much more than is at present envisaged.
That brings me to the crux of the matter, as I see it. If large-scale capital development does occur at Stansted, this in itself will have a crucial effect on consideration of the cost which would be involved in siting the third London airport in a completely different area. In such circumstances, the Airports Authority might well argue that to go elsewhere would require large sums of capital to be written off, and this might well be an appreciable factor influencing the final decision on where the third airport should be.
I welcome the statement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government today that the President of the Board of Trade would not authorise large expenditures of capital at Stansted. I hope that he will stand by that assurance. None the less, as has already been said, Ministers may change, and situations may change. In the circumstances, how sure can we be that these undertakings would be honoured to the full?
I fully recognise the need to accommodate Britain's growing air traffic. It is crucial for the nation that we do our best to that end. I have no desire to put all the burden on Heathrow. It would be utterly selfish to say that all the development should take place there, and that is not the view of many of the people with whom I have discussed the matter. But I still feel anxiety on two points. First, I am anxious about the loss of local control—this concerns the principle involved, not just Stansted—and, second, I feel that developments which could be approved at Stansted could affect the final decision on where the third airport should be.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden has stated that the powers to be granted

to the Airports Authority will exceed those granted to all other statutory undertakers save in connection with the docks. I hope that the Minister will say whether he agrees with that statement of the position. Everyone knows that developments at an airport can have a great deal more effect on the surrounding area and the amenities enjoyed by the people living there than practically any other form of development.
Having listened carefully to the argument, I still do not accept that the case has been made out, and for this reason I shall not be able to support the Order.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), who is a geographical, if not an ideological, neighbour. I acknowledge the sincerity and determination with which the hon. Gentleman has taken part in the Stansted battle, headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), whose speech today was so notable that it is unnecessary for me to add much.
I am sorry that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has left the Chamber, as I wanted to tell him how sorry I felt for him in being associated with this Statutory Instrument. The right hon. Gentleman really cares for the countryside and the amenities of our land; he understands the case for preserving the neighbourhood of Stansted and of other places which might be harmed as a result of the Order. One may well wonder why he has tabled it. It is difficult to find an explanation for this Statutory Instrument which is both innocent and rational. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that the debate about Stansted which we had last June and all the surrounding agitation should have deterred Her Majesty's Government from tabling such an Order. What justification for it have we had today?
It has been argued that we should accept certain assurances, for example, about consultation. When I asked what would happen when consultation led to disagreement, I was told that everything would be referred to the President of the Board of Trade, who happens to be the member of the Government responsible


for civil aviation. Again, the Order has been justified by various other undertakings, which may prove less convincing in the future, to put it mildly, than they may appear to some hon. Gentlemen tonight.
The trouble is that what has happened over Stansted has destroyed so much public confidence in the Government's intentions. I do not wish to be unfair. The present President of the Board of Trade did something to restore a measure of public confidence when he announced the setting up of the Roskill Commission. But the tabling of this Order has undone all that, and suspicion is again rife.
One finds quite extraordinary ideas now going about. In my constituency, particularly in and around Abridge, and in the Lambourne Parish Council, there has been speculation because it is proposed to install a beacon at Stapleford Aerodrome. It has been said that tests are to be carried out at Stapleford to see whether the airfield there is a suitable location for a very high frequency omni-directional radar ranging system. Various views were put forward in the Epping and Ongar Rural District Council, and it was then said that the beacon was only temporary. The council was eventually more or less reassured that the installations were required only to supply additional navigational assistance to aircraft bound not for Stansted but for Heathrow. I mention that only to illustrate the extraordinary suspicions which are aroused because of the Government's conduct in the past and because of the present Order.
I am grateful for the assurances given by the Minister on 29th October, but I am concerned about the powers which the Order would give to the British Airports Authority. The Chairman of the Authority has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Epping, in very polite terms. In my view, the Chairman of the Authority has displayed a certain arrogance in these matters. I do not want to be more critical than that. But I am concerned that the Order would empower the British Airports Authority to construct buildings at Stansted or elsewhere which, by generating new employment, more traffic, more flights and more noise, would defeat the whole purpose of planning in the county where the airfield is situated.
I speak as an Essex Member but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, I think that I speak in a wider interest, too. Undertakings are just not enough when there is, unfortunately, so much suspicion and distrust. I respectfully urge the Government to withdraw the Order and redraft it. If they do not, we shall be compelled to vote against it, and I for one shall do so with all my heart.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The general proposition to free statutory undertakers from the restraints applicable to the rest of the community does not fill me with enthusiasm. The proposal to free a new authority—and, as has been said, one which is chaired with more enthusiasm than balance, perhaps—from these restraints, fills me with even less enthusiasm.
The use to which the powers conceded in the Order will be put is clearly that of capital investment; it will be for the necessary buildings, and so on, in the development of airports. The vast and increasing value of this investment will then become an important argument in urging wide and general development of the airport. It will be said that to make profitable use of the money which has gone into the airport the number of aircraft using it—the number of movements—must be substantially increased.
If I was sure that the suspicions which have been aired around the Chamber to the effect that this capital investment will take place at Stansted had substance. I should not be quite so worried as I am I have always taken the view that, while the final decisions are being made about the siting of the third London airport—I think that it will be the fourth—pressure of travel, tourism and commerce will build up. The airlines are, quite legitimately and successfully, expanding business. The recent failure of a piece of private enterprise should not blind us to the success of public enterprise in this sphere.
For this reason, we must expect that the aircraft operators and the Airports Authority, under pressure from the operators—because we must recognise that the Authority is perhaps more the creature of the aircraft operators than the instrument of the community—will bring pressure to bear for the further


and continued use and expansion of airports. This is legitimate and inevitable.
Our job is to protect the community from the consequences of these pressures. The Order removes one of those protections instead of strengthening them. This is what worries me. If the build-up to which I have referred is to occur, it is better that it should do so at Stansted than at Heathrow, where the amount of noise nuisance per resident affected is several hundred times greater than it is at Stansted.
Using the new index of community nuisance, which relates the number of people affected by noise and not only the amount of noise and the frequency of the aircraft, Heathrow is not merely ten times more affected but hundreds of times more affected, and it is likely to remain so, because almost uniquely aircraft landing at Heathrow fly over millions of homes, because most landings take place from east to west.
Therefore, practically the whole of London is normally flown over by aircraft landing at Heathrow when the wind is from the normal direction. When I landed there recently, the wind, possibly knowing that I was aboard the plane, turned and we landed the opposite way round; we did not fly over the residents of London. The people living under the glide path at Heathrow are far and away the worst affected people in the matter of aircraft noise.
I fear that this freedom for capital development might well be utilised, not only at Stansted—I think that it will be utilised there to some degree—but also at Heathrow. Then the argument will be deployed that the existing restrictions and restraints applying at Heathrow—for example, as to the number of flights which can be made at night—should be weakened or removed so as to make full and profitable use of the vast capital investment which is now being made.
I listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister with care. I have heard nothing to convince me that if the matter were to go to a vote it would be right for me to follow the Government into the Lobby and support the Order. Therefore, as of this moment, I take a similar view to that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). I

hope that in replying to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to adduce some more persuasive arguments.
I assure my right hon. Friend that the likely rate of development in aircraft operation during the next few years will call for both Stansted and another airport on the coast or in the estuary to contain it, if Britain is to retain its present European lead. As the Authority is answerable, not, as I think it should be, to the Ministry of Health, but to the Board of Trade, the consideration of how many dollars will be earned will be the only one which will carry full weight in deciding whether aircraft are allowed to come in.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is not part of the danger of the Order that it will tend to produce an increased expansion at Heathrow and Stansted and, therefore, perhaps defer looking towards coastal airports or offshore airports, which must be the ultimate answer?

Mr. Jenkins: This is a possibility, but it is not one which I hope will take place, because the Roskill Commission is urgently looking into the position.
I hope that knowledge of the pressure which exists will encourage the Commission to make an early recommendation and that when the Government receive the recommendation they will act upon it with celerity. With the arrival of the jumbo jet, and of supersonic flying, we urgently need an airport which can be approached from over the sea. We need an airport either in the estuary or on the coast, where large numbers of people will not be incommoded.
In addressing myself to the Order I do not wish to pursue the matter wider than I have done already. I said that the Authority is answerable to the Board of Trade and not to the Department represented by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I apologise. My hon. Friend has made such rapid movement and progress that I had forgotten that he has landed up at the Board of Trade. I congratulate him.
I am disturbed that the Board of Trade is the Department which will ultimately be responsible for what the Authority does. The Board of Trade and the Air


ports Authority have taken so little notice of a recommendation by the Parliamentary Commissioner that they should measure the amount of noise made by aircraft landing that no action has been taken on the recommendation. At Heathrow, still the only measurement of noise is that made on take-off. No measurement is taken of the amount of noise occurring on landing, but that is the noise which creates the greatest amount of nuisance to the greatest number of people. I take this omission as evidence of the fact that the Board of Trade should not be given the responsibility which will fall upon them in administering the Order.
Yesterday, I recommended that responsibility for films should be removed from the Board of Trade. Today, I recommend that responsibility for aircraft noise should be removed from that Department. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will appreciate that I wish to remove a little of his existing heavy burden.

Mr. Rankin: Which Department would my hon. Friend make responsible for aircraft safety?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We cannot pursue that on this occasion.

Mr. Jenkins: In concluding what I have to say, I will not respond to the temptation placed before me by my hon. Friend except to say that in my view, the question of aircraft noise should be the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I seldom find myself in such agreement with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), both of whom have spoken from the opposite side of the House. Much of what they have said has tremendous force and should be listened to by the Minister before we conclude the debate.
The hon. Member for Putney has told us that the exemptions from planning control which are provided for under the General Envelopment Order, 1963, do not fill him with great enthusiasm. They do not fill me with great enthusiasm, either. I consider that they should be kept to the absolute minimum consistent with the fulfilment of the reasonable duties of the

statutory undertakings and that every time Ministers come forward with proposals to extend those reliefs, we should examine them carefully, not only from the viewpoint of constituency interests such as we have heard aired today, but from the wider aspect of the principles such as were outlined by the right hon. and learner Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), whose arguments had tremendous force.
The hon. Member for Putney hinted at a consequence of what might happen if we are willing to grant the Order to the Government. The Minister said in his opening speech that as a result of granting these exemptions under Class XVII, there would be no danger of a great increase in the number of flights. As the hon. Member has pointed out, however, if there are more buildings on an airport, the users will say that they are not able to meet the requirements of all those buildings to handle the number of passengers or the quantity of freight of which they are capable and that, therefore, they should be permitted a relaxation of the restrictions at present imposed on night flights. The Board of Trade would find those arguments difficult to resist when millions of £s are locked up in the capital expenditure which is permitted under the Order and the airlines and the British Airports Authority are losing money in consequence. The hon. Member had a valid argument there.
I absolutely agreed with the hon. Member for Epping when he said that we should not inhibit the growth of air traffic. Obviously, we have to cater for something like an 8 per cent. growth in the number of passengers and a 25 per cent. growth in the quantity of air freight per annum over the next 10 years or so. Recent figures outlined in The Times Business News this morning showed that this trend is expected by all the airlines to continue until at least 1980. Therefore, nothing that we do should inhibit the airport authorities and the airlines from expanding their capacity to bring this traffic into the United Kingdom.
That is not to say, however, that we should do this in an underhand and secret way by relaxing planning restrictions which are applicable to the rest of the population, and, indeed, to all other industrial enterprises which make an equal contribution to our balance of payments


and to the economic prosperity or the country.
We in this House do not say that because Rolls-Royce, for instance, makes a substantial contribution to our balance of payments, it should be allowed to put up buildings which are suitable for the testing of aircraft jet engines at Sinfin, Derby, or that the Royal Aircraft Establishment should be allowed to put up multi-storey buildings at Farnborough because of the enormous contribution which it makes to the country's earnings and the foreign exchange which is brought in as a result of the splendid developments of British technology—of course not. In the Order, however, it is, I think, implied that because the development of airports is so essential to the economic prosperity of the country, the British Airports Authority as a statutory undertaking should be exempted from some of the important restrictions which apply to the rest of the population.
I want to look for two minutes at how those exemptions compare with some of the others in the General Development Order, 1963, about which no one has said anything this afternoon. I refer to Class XVII, heading A, "Railway or light railway undertakings", of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963. I hope, incidentally, that the Minister of State, who does not represent the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, will be able to give me a reply to this. In passing, I think, it is rather unsatisfactory that the hon. Gentleman and not one of the Ministers responsible for planning should be replying to the debate, although I am pleased to see the recently-appointed Minister for Planning and Land sitting beside him and I hope that, even with his short experience of his Department, he will be able to give his hon. Friend some advice on this matter.
If we look at the type of buildings which are permitted to be developed by railway or light railway undertakings, we find that the exceptions include:
any railway station or bridge, or…any residential building, office or building to be used for manufacturing or repairing work, which is not situated wholly within the interior of a railway station.
Today's Order would permit the British Airports Authority to develop buildings for the use of passengers, freight or livestock

passing through an airport. Those buildings are analogous to buildings for the handling of passengers which are included in the designation of "railway stations" which are excepted from permitted development under the 1963 Order in Class XVII, Heading A.
To take another example—I shall not go the whole way through the Class XVII exemptions—permitted development for gas undertakings includes
any…development carried out in, on, over or under operational land of the undertaking except:—

(a) the erection, or the reconstruction or alteration so as materially to affect the design or external appearance thereof, of buildings".

There is no exception there. It is all buildings, of any character whatever, and not particular buildings which are required for the purposes of the gas undertaking.
Exactly the same phrase appears under heading E in the case of electricity undertakings. The Minister of State will know the example which is given by the County Councils Association in the memorandum which, I think, has been sent to all hon. Members concerning docks and harbour undertakings. Therefore, I shall not repeat it.
That illustrates that the Order which is before us today is of a more sweeping character than any that we have hitherto considered under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. The exemptions which are to be permitted to the British Airports Authority go far beyond those of any other statutory undertaking. In this connection, I wish to draw attention to another factor which, unfortunately, has not been aired this afternoon, and for very good reasons—I can understand this—but it is a serious reason why the House should not give approval to the Order.
I refer to the fact that we have recently passed the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, which materially affects the position of statutory undertakers, and yet that Act, which passed through this House and another place, has not yet been printed and at this moment is not available in the Vote Office. The Clauses in the Bill to which I should like to refer—I have not the faintest idea what numbers they will have as Sections when the Act is printed—are


Clauses 61 to 63 in the Bill as it left this House. These refer to new provisions as to what is operational land of statutory undertakers; planning applications and appeals by statutory undertakers; restrictions on entitlement of other undertakers, compensation for adverse planning decisions.
From these headings we can perceive that the Act will be of extreme, material importance to the consideration of this Order, and yet we are not able to get from the Vote Office copies of the Act as it has come back from another place. It is quite outrageous that the Government should have brought this Order before us this afternoon when we are not able to get the Bill which went from this place to another place and which may have been returned, indeed, but with material Amendments which we are not able to scrutinise while considering the Order which the Act affects.
However, if we take the Bill as it was when it left this House we find that the definition of "operational land" is modified by Clause—or Section—61 and that should affect our consideration of the Order. First of all, we have to consider, was the interest in land which is held by statutory undertakers held before the commencement of Section 61, or were the circumstances such that it did not fall to be treated as operational land for the purposes of the principal Act? Secondly, was the interest in this land acquired after the Section came into effect? If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes" then Section 61 applies. Then we have to ask, is there, or has there at some time been, in force in respect of the land a planning permission for its development, and would that development have involved the use of land for the purposes of carrying out a statutory undertaker's undertaking? Third, was the land used by other statutory undertakers for their purposes immediately before it was acquired by the present owner? If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes" the land is operational land.
I am sorry to have wearied the House with a summary of what is contained in Section 61 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, but I think the House will see in a moment why it is of tremendous importance in relation to this Order. Suppose that the British Airports

Authority were to acquire some land immediately in the neighbourhood of Heathrow, land which had previously belonged to British Rail and was operational land as defined for the latter's purposes, then it would become, under Section 61, operational land for the purposes of the British Airports Authority. Therefore, any development which is permitted by the General Development Order, 1963, under this Order would become exempt on that additional land which has been added to the periphery of Heathrow Airport.
One can see that it is, therefore, extremely important that we should have been able to consider this Order in relation to those Clauses or Sections 61 to 63, a little bit of which I have read out, but which, unfortunately, are not available to the House because this Order has been brought forward before we have had reprinted the Bill brought back from another place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who replies to the debate will say why it has been necessary to bring this Order before the House in such haste that we have not had opportunity of considering the implications for it of the Act, because the latter is not available in the Vote Office.
I have studied the remarks made by the County Councils Association, and I gather that there are others which have been made by other local authority associations in a similar vein, I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Epping said about local democracy and I absolutely agreed with him on that, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, the Minister of State—I do not know whether or not he has power to do this—when he winds up this debate please to be flexible; he must realise that if there were a free vote on this Order three-quarters of the House would be against him. He may raise his eyebrows, but it is a fact. Not only hon. Members who have airports in their constituencies but many others feel that the powers of local authorities are being seriously undermined as he makes this Order.
It has nothing to do with aircraft noise, the number of movements, the impingement of aircraft on local population. This has to do with the very foundations of the freedom of local authorities, and it is that which is at stake as the Minister makes this Order. If one is to permit the nibbling away


of the powers of the local authorities by the extension of the General Development Order, 1963, we do not know where the matter will stop. Next, Ministers will make similar orders for the railways, for docks and harbours, and other statutory undertakers listed in Part I of Schedule 1. Gradually these authorities will become totally exempt from planning control. The day that happens will be an extremely evil day for the country, not only for the local authorities but for the inhabitants of the places where these developments are likely to take place. So I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, before it is too late to reconsider this Order, and to give time for second thoughts. That, I am sure, would be very acceptable to the House as a whole.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: Since our last debate along these lines we have had the privilege of visiting the Minister of State's office and listening to one of the solutions of the noise problem in action: we heard the RB211 mewing more gently than a cat. This is the line along which we will solve the problem of noise. By that method we shall in no way endanger the safety of aircraft or passengers. To me, the strange thing is that instead of using that engine ourselves we sold it to America. We have new aircraft coming along, and we pay lip-service to the need to having less noise in the operation of aircraft—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—

Mr. Rankin: I was interposing this point for only a minute or two, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the first individual, I think, to be thought out of order—and that is an injustice to Scotland, which is even worse than an injustice to Ireland. So I conclude the point by wondering why the Government sold that engine to America, £100 million of it, and did not keep one or two for our own use and so help to soothe the feelings of some hon. Members.
I have risen to speak on one point and one point only. I raised it at the very beginning of the debate. I was told what I expected I would be told, and what I knew already, that Scotland, of which I was speaking at the time, is excluded from the scope of this Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes,

but Scotland is not necessarily excluded from the consequences of this Order, because this Order deals with the British Airports Authority, and while it is perfectly true that today we are covering only Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow, and that the two airports in Scotland which now come under the control of the Authority, Prestwick and Edinburgh, are not mentioned in the Order. I was told what I had already found out. There is to be another order for Scotland when we can debate the future of Edinburgh and Prestwick. But are we in Scotland taken for people so simple as to believe that decisions which are taken today about Heathrow and Gatwick and Stansted will not apply to Prestwick and to Edinburgh?
They are all part of the British Airports Authority. Everything that we say and do and decide about the Authority will apply when we come to deal with the Scottish Order—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend thinks differently, we will hear what the answer is from the Minister. I will ask for the assurance—oh! It is another Minister. This is one of the puzzles. Already we have four Ministers in active or semi-active control of aviation affairs and my right hon. Friend appears for the first time, as the fifth.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): No.

Mr. Rankin: Then I do not know who is to reply. I take it that it will be the Minister responsible for aviation affairs, and I want an assurance from him that in due course, when we come to discuss the Scottish Order, we will be as free to discuss that Order as English Members are now in discussing this Order. The British Airports Authority has stepped into Scotland and taken over operational control of Prestwick, because the Americans gave it up; and of Turnhouse because Edinburgh Corporation could not make it a paying proposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Order before the House, and not discuss the Scottish position.

Mr. Rankin: I will not go too far. I simply hope that we will be as free to discuss the Order relating to Scotland as hon. Members have been free to discuss this Order tonight. I hope that the


Minister on duty will report to the Minister responsible for aviation that we expect this to be so.

6.3 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I will not repeat the arguments made against this Order by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I have been approached by the Surrey County Council because it has anxieties as to the effect of the Order, and I want to register my opposition to it. Stansted Airport is most important, but in Surrey there is Gatwick Airport. When it was made into one of the London Airports that had a very great effect on the beautiful surrounding countryside. I have no doubt that this Order will have an even greater effect. There is also the position of Heathrow, which also affects Surrey.
It is a great pity that, for this Order, it is necessary to divide the House on party lines. I suppose that it is inevitable. It increasingly happens. It is a great pity, as hon. Members opposite have said, because the Minister has been badly advised. He said earlier that the Airports Authority would be able to get on with developments without unnecessary formality. I suppose that that is a remark that a great many organisations would make. There is a feeling that public authorities might act more responsibly and might be more careful of general amenity and other considerations which affect the public good.
More often than not, when the House divides on such a subject, the opposite side take the view that this is so while this side of the House takes a contrary view. I can only speak for my own constituency, much of which is in Green Belt. At present public authorities have produced plans for slashing through the countryside with great motorways. I do not believe that public authorities are more responsible and more careful of general amenities when it suits them not to be so.
The Minister said that he also wanted to open the debate because his good faith had been called into question. I do not know what on earth gave him that idea, and I am sure that no one in the House doubts his good faith for a moment, particularly when he says that he would consider with sympathy objections raised against any proposals. We

are absolutely certain that he would consider these objections sympathetically. He also said that the Authority would give certain assurances. All that is not good enough. What I, and I am sure what we all want to do, is to provide for the future, when other Ministers, from whatever side of the House, are in power, when this debate is forgotten, and it is convenient to allow developments to take place which will greatly affect local areas and their inhabitants. That is the important point, made forcibly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), and for that reason I hope that the Government will withdraw the Order.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: What we are discussing is whether there is a need to grant special planning powers to the British Airports Authority. The argument runs that there are certain exemptions of planning powers to statutory undertakers and, as the Authority is a statutory undertaker, it should have similar powers. The Ministry has probably looked at the Order in relation to the docks and other similar undertakings when framing these matters.
However an airport is something very different from a dock. With docks there are exemptions on structures or erections required for the handling of traffic, but not on bridges or other buildings. It is clear that the Government have taken that into consideration in framing this Order. But they have gone much wider for three reasons which have already been mentioned: noise, employment and traffic problems.
It must be recognised that an airport has a licence to spread noise over an enormous area. This is a matter which should be considered on planning and health grounds, but not solely by the Board of Trade. Noise is thoroughly objectionable. Therefore, a proper consideration of planning should be whether an airport has a licence to spread even further noise.
Concerning the further expansion of an airport in relation to employment, it is not only employment within the airfield. Outside the airfield various service industries grow up. An international airfield can produce an enormous employment potential. Therefore, it is wrong


that the Airports Authority should have the right to decide, where an airport is to be expanded, that employment shall be expanded. This runs over into regional planning. It is wrong that this should be a matter for the Board of Trade and not for regional planning.
It is surely wrong that the British Airports Authority can suddenly generate a vast volume of traffic and say to the local traffic authorities and the Ministry of Transport, "We have created a problem. You have to solve it." Here again, proper planning should come about.
The question is whether the Order entitles the British Airports Authority to make a considerable extentions to an airport. It can be argued that because runways and non-operational buildings are excluded—that is, that the Airports Authority cannot grant to itself planning permission for those matters—this will limit the size of the airfield. I do not agree.
On runways, take the example of Stansted. The capacity number of aircraft movements last year was 33,000 against a theoretical capacity of 150,000. The number was limited because the other facilities at the airfield were inadequate. Therefore, it is clearly not the provision of runways. Taking that out of the exemption does not mean that the size of the airfield is thereby limited.
The Minister was asked to explain what "non-operational buildings" meant. The only explanation that I heard from him was that they referred to such matters as hangars which would be built by airlines. However, that does not stop the Airports Authority building a hangar and leasing it to the airport. It does not stop much greater use of the airfield where servicing is done at another, which is not unknown. Therefore, I do not think that either because of runways or non-operational buildings there is any limitation preventing the British Airports Authority from considerably expanding an airport in its control.
We have heard that various undertakings have been given by the British Airports Authority. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, it is unsatisfactory to legislate on the basis of granting certain powers and

then receiving an undertaking that those powers will not be used. This is a ridiculous form of legislation and it must be wrong.
Taking this Order at its face value, it is clearly thoroughly bad planning to give the right to grant planning permission to the British Airports Authority, giving it the possibility of disrupting the area in which it operates and of disrupting the local population over a large area.
Both the Town and Country Planning Act and the Skeffington Committee have insisted on public participation in planning. If we give the right to grant planning permission to the Airports Authority we are going against what has been said this year by the Government about their intentions concerning planning. Public participation in planning is what we want to achieve, but it is being negatived here. Surely, not only responsible authorities but the public are having their rights withdrawn, so this Order must be wrong.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston: I agree with what has been said about it being absolutely necessary for us to debate this Order today. I feel sure that we would have heard a great deal less, particularly from the benches opposite, had the debate on this Order not been taking place within the general context of, and at the same time as, the Roskill Commission.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not think that there is any doubt about the sensitivity of the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends towards planning matters. The recent Town and Country Planning Act speaks for itself in that respect—[Interruption.] The unfortunate thing about right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they so often find the truth unpalatable. There is no doubt about the sensitivity—[Interruption.] I have only a few minutes. Perhaps I may develop my first two or three sentences. There is no doubt about the sensitivity of the Government on matters of this kind.
I support what has been said by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) about it being wrong, when considering statutory authorities, to place the British Airports Authority at a disadvantage. It has been


suggested that airport development, at least in the southern part of the country, is to some extent sub judice whilst the Roskill Commission is sitting. At the same time, I feel bound to say that there is no question whatever, I would hope, of putting a total freeze upon all kinds of airport development during this period. We have to face constant growing competition from European countries for air traffic and this country certainly cannot afford to be left behind in this regard. This being so, even whilst the Roskill Commission is sitting, there must be a certain amount of airport development, and I think it would be wrong to hamper the British Airports Authority. This would be the inevitable result of opposing and not proceeding with this Order.
I said that I felt we would not have heard so much about this Order had it not been taking place at the same time as the Roskill Commission is sitting. I feel strongly that that is the case. Indeed, I think that there has been a deliberate attempt to excite public suspicion and feeling in some parts of the country concerning this Order. I think that those concerned in the Stansted area have now taken the argument so far that they have begun to overplay their hand and lose the public sympathy which they undoubtedly had up until the time that my right hon. Friend announced that there was to be a Commission of Inquiry into the third London Airport.
There can be no question whatsover—and I should have thought this was plain to everyone—of an attempt to develop the third London Airport by the back door. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said in opening the debate that he accepted the good faith of the British Airports Authority, and I accept what he said, but some of his hon. Friends, particularly in statements reported in The Times, have been doing their best to encourage suspicions about this sort of thing. Either one accepts the good faith of the Authority, or one is naive in supposing that there can be any sort of back door development of the third London Airport. Quite clearly, while the Roskill Commission is sitting there can be no question of proceeding along those lines. Because of the points made by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate about the strict limits in the Order with regard

to runways being excluded, including extensions to existing runways, I am convinced that there is no question of any back door development. My right hon. Friend was also very reassuring about the question of consultation.
I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) who talked about financial investment, but nobody can possibly imagine that a decision on the third London airport will depend on the few million pounds worth of investment that is likely to take place, to put it at its extreme. Quite clearly, a matter of this kind will not be decided on the basis of the limited amount of money which is likely to be expended in developments of this kind.
Having said that I regard it as necessary for this debate to have taken place, I very much regret, as do my constituents and others in Kent, the spurious arguments which have been used, and the spurious suspicions which have been aroused over this matter.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Having listened to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), I find that his contribution to the debate is different from that which has come from the back benches on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept fully what his Front Bench has said, and he has called into question the motives of hon. Members on this side of the House. He implied that we were not concerned with the Town and Country Planning Act because we were not interested in reading it. The point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was that it was not available for us to read if we wanted to.
I should like to take up the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), that this Order goes against much of the debate and feeling which inspired the Town and Country Planning Act. As one who served on the Standing Committee, I support that view, because throughout the debate in Committee there was a tremendous demand from both sides—and, to be fair to Ministers, it must be said that they tried to help—that there should be more public participation in planning decisions.
This Order is a retrograde step because it is very much wider in its application than anything which applies to private industry. If hon. Gentlemen opposite care to check what private industry has to do in similar circumstances, they will be very much surprised at the result.
What I am afraid of, and what the Order brings out, is that all the trendy talk about participation is just so much eyewash. Little has been said about the presence or non-presence of Ministers. As I understand it, the Minister concerned with participation is the Paymaster-General. I think that the right hon. Lady might have been here to listen to the debate and to find out how many hon. Members are concerned about this kind of Order which makes the possibility of participation so much less likely.
One of the considerations which has urged me to speak is that until a few days ago I thought that having a constituency about 250 miles from London meant that I was somewhat remote from the possibility of having the third London Airport, but when I returned to my constituency the other day I discovered that that very suggestion had been made. I therefore thought that I would attend the debate to hear what was said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk).
It is interesting to note that when the County Councils' Association and others were first approached about the form the Order should take the Departmental letter described the Order as
the minimum needed for the provision and efficient working of the services for which the Authority are responsible.
Those are pretty strong terms, but we know that already a change has been made, in that runways have been taken out, and planning permission has to be obtained for those. If "minimum" did not mean what it said on that occasion, then, when the Minister says the Authority needs the power which the Order seeks to give it, I think we must beg leave to doubt that, because originally more was wanted.
These powers are tremendously wide. I am thinking, in particular, of the power to place noisy maintenance units close to the edge of the aerodrome, which could have a profound effect on people in the vicinity. That could have a much more profound effect than some other

matters with which other statutory undertakers have to comply.
Quite apart from the arguments which have been put forward about the location of airports, I think that we should be concerned with the people living around the present airports, because these wide powers can affect their everyday lives. The hon. Member for Faversham seems to believe that undertakings and statements by Ministers are sufficient. It has been said that nobody questions the good faith of Ministers. I agree with that, but Ministers change, and I do not see why the people of this country should not have their rights enshrined in the law, rather than leave matters to Ministerial discretion. For that reason more than any other I shall vote against the Order.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Until the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) spoke, the Minister had received hardly a whisper of support for the Order. Indeed, two of his hon. Friends made it clear that they had heard no justification for the Order, and would not support the Minister in the Lobby. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) damned the Order with faint praise. He said that it was all right except for the bits about which we were talking.
Apart from the concern which arises because of the background to all this, because of all the fuss over Stansted, which is perfectly justified, and because, too, the Roskill Commission is now sitting, there are strong objections to this Order because of the width of the powers which it seeks to confer on the British Airports Authority. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that the powers to be conferred on the Authority by this Order are very substantially wider than those conferred on any other statutory undertaking.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made it clear that in most other cases buildings are not included as permitted development and that even where they are, and even where plant is concerned, in all cases except those of railways there is a height limit. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made it clear that the powers now conferred do not fit into any of the categories that have formerly been regarded


as covering this sort of permitted development. In particular, he made the point that these functions of the British Airports Authority will require to be exercised only occasionally. They will not clog up any planning machine in terms of applications for planning permission. The Authority was created in 1965, and has been carrying out great extensions to London Airport. There has been no evidence that the Authority has been prejudiced by the lack of this Order.
What is the Minister's case? What is his answer to the anxious questions that have been put? He admits quite honestly that concern does exist, and he appreciates the reason for it. He says that Article 4 provides the answer. The Authority has given an undertaking that it will consult local planning authorities and give them two months to make their representations. At the end of that time, if there is a dispute, the only remedy available to the local planning authority is to apply for an Article 4 direction. If the Minister is satisfied that there is a prima facie case in favour of the local planning authority he will presumably approve the Article 4 direction.
Then there will doubtless be a straight planning refusal, so that there will have to be a planning appeal, which will mean that a period of about four months is lost. Is that in the interests of the development of British aviation? By rewording the Order we could bring the permitted development into the categories mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend so that it covers emergency matters involved in day-to-day maintenance and repair but not major matters covering virtually all buildings that the Authority is likely to require, which should be left to ordinary planning procedures.
Mention has been made of Circular 100, which operated up to the time when the three airports ceased to be under the control of the Ministry of Aviation, as it then was. That circular provided a reasonable alternative to the ordinary planning procedures in cases where the Crown was concerned. The Acts do not bind the Crown, but Government Departments have, under the circular, agreed, first, to consult local planning authorities and, secondly, where there is a dispute, to accept the ruling of the Minister of

Housing and Local Government. In effect, in a dispute of this sort that Minister performs virtually the same rôle as in deciding an appeal from a private individual against a refusal of planning permission.
As soon as these airports were put into the control of the Authority, that safeguard went. We now have a situation in which, despite all the undertakings, the Authority is completely its own master, legally, in developing one of the three airports—and we think of Stansted, not only because of the background but because, of all the airports in the South-East, it has the greatest potential for expansion without extending a runway.
If hon. Members will bear in mind the fact that one of the major spheres in which development is taking place in aviation is in short take-off and landing, they will realise that the length of the existing runway becomes even less of a limitation than it is at the moment. Even with present aircraft which can be operated in and out of Stansted it is possible to run with up to 150,000 movements a year. This alters the whole pattern of aerodromes in this part of England. Stansted, in terms of aircraft movement, is much below Southend and Luton, but it is capable, without any runway extension, to expansion well beyond the capacity of either of those airports. It is naive of the hon. Member for Faversham to consider that when public money is put into these things it does not influence the final decision.
Let us consider the other safeguards upon which the Minister asked us to rely. He said, first, that the President of the Board of Trade would not authorise the necessary capital expenditure to expand Stansted to any extent. The Authority is one of the few bits of nationalised industry that are making a handsome profit, and it may not want its capital expenditure authorised. It has made about £10 million a year, and that would go a long way in respect of constructing the sort of installations required at Stansted. The only limitation to expanding operations at Stansted is the provision of passenger and freight handing facilities.
We were told that the Authority has no intention of expanding this airport. I do not suspect its assurances, but not only Ministers change; chairmen of


nationalised industries change. Above all, circumstances change, and it may at some future time be the duty of the Authority to change its intentions, because it has a statutory duty to carry out certain functions under the Act. We cannot rely on that sort of statement, which may well be true for today but is not necessarily true for tomorrow.
We have been given assurances about consultations. If we have to rely on such assurances—which I am sure have been given in good faith—that itself constitutes the most damning indictment of the inadequacies of the Order, because we are dealing with a legislative order—something which forms part of the law. It ought to be possible—it has always been done in the past—so to draft orders of this sort that the carrying out of the strict legal obligations is in itself a sufficient safeguard, and an answer to all these planning problems and the anxieties of the people concerned, without there being a need for all these extra assurances.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take this order back. I have no doubt that the Whips will succeed in producing enough votes to steamroller it through the House, but the right hon. Gentleman has lost the debate. Let him take the order back and recognise that in doing so he will at least be doing something to restore the confidence that the introduction of this order has destroyed, not only in the House but throughout the country, and especially in those areas which are vitally affected.
We were told, as the last two safeguards, first, that the Minister has powers to remove the right to compensation if planning permission is eventually refused—and we had all the rigmarole about Article 4 direction appeals, and so on—and then that the lessees of property will be subject to planning control. As the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) said, nothing in the Airports Authority Act prevents the Authority's developing a building and then leasing it complete. It is not obliged to lease the land and then leave it to the lessee to apply for planning permission. In certain circumstances the former course might be the most convenient.
I want to refer to the differences between this statutory undertaking and all the others mentioned in the Order of 1963. There cannot be any function with a bigger ramification over a wider area in respect of the lives of people in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has once again reminded us—if we needed reminding—of the appalling noise problem that arises with modern airports. I do not go with him entirely in saying that the only factor of importance is the number of people affected. It is no great consolation for one person in 20 to know that he might have been one person in 300.
However that may be, we have noise nuisance in three forms—its total amount, its intensity, which grows greater with certain types of aircraft, and the lengthening of the period over which that nuisance is suffered. We understand from the chairman of the B.A.A. that it is intended to use Stansted, for example, 24 hours out of the 24. This is surely something which the planning authorities should have some means of controlling or at least making representations about.
Then we have the well-known and very substantial effect of an airport of this sort, if it were to expand substantially, on employment, and therefore on housing, and therefore on the location of schools and the provision of many other services. Of course, the mere increase in employment, as well as the increase in aircraft movements, adds enormously to road traffic problems and can affect the whole pattern of highways—not merely in that particular local planning authority's area, but indeed throughout the region.
I therefore suggest to the Minister that this is a peculiarly inappropriate set of powers to give this particular body. This is not because I suspect the integrity of any individual. It so happens that the nature of the beast, the B.A.A., is quite different from the nature of all these other statutory undertakings, and it is a difference which will have far-reaching effects on the planning proposals and development in the immediate neighbourhood of any airport.
I should like to put one or two questions. First, is there any evidence that the B.A.A. has been prejudiced by a lack of this Order over the last three years?


Why is it that three of its airports are to be treated differently from the fourth? What is to happen to Prestwick and why should it be treated differently? Why was it necessary to produce this Order in the Recess? As the hon. Member for Orpington asked, was it really necessary for us to discuss this without being able to lay our hands on the completed and printed edition of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968? That Act is clearly important, because all these powers are governed by what is "operation land". Within the short time at his disposal, the hon. Gentleman was at some pains to explain that this is not exactly simple and straightforward.
The next question is, what are these "other buildings", which will come under control? I cannot think of a single building likely to be put up by the B.A.A. which is not a building
…required in connection with the movement or maintenance of aircraft or with the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharge or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at an aerodrome…".
I cannot think of a building for which it would not be possible to make a very good case for it coming into that category. After all, even public lavatories are required for that sort of thing. It is nonsense to say that this exception means anything, because the exception to the exception is wider than the exception.
Finally, I want to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said. The Government are in danger of completely destroying any confidence which they have built up by having at last—we think after a great deal of obstinacy, but, nevertheless, at last—changed their minds over that original Stansted decision, for which the present President of the Board of Trade deserves some credit, and appointing the Roskill Commission. We very much welcome both its appointment and terms of reference and the methods of its procedure. But to bring this Order forward is to undermine that confidence which is so important to it. Lack of confidence is not something which I want to rejoice about from this side, because it is a lack of confidence in Government and Parliament and not merely in the Labour Party.
I beg the Minister to think again, to take this back and bring it forward again with a very much tighter new paragraph

(a), remembering that, as it stands, it is a bad Order, it is an unnecessary Order, and it succeeds only in a monumental achievement of thoroughly bad public relations.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): In the debate today we have been dealing with two separate, though related, questions. The first concerns the whole principle of a general development Order and the proper powers of statutory bodies. On this, I cannot reasonably add much more to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing, although I hope that I will deal with some of the points which have been raised. I must make it clear that there are areas of policy here that it is right that we should discuss from time to time. As he said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) endorsed, the scope of Orders of this kind can obviously be a matter for argument. There is a need—I would not dispute this—for continued Parliamentary vigilance.
The second question concerns the future of Stansted—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Before he leaves that point, will the hon. Gentleman, in the context of this Order, answer particularly the third question which has just been put to him, that is to say, give his interpretation of the exception to the exception within this Order:
…not being buildings required in connection with the movement or maintenance of aircraft or with the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharge or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at an aerodrome…
Will he define what buildings he thinks could be put up within that definition and what he thinks could not be put up which they might desire to put up?

Mr. Rodgers: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be patient, I hope that I will deal, if not with all the points made in the debate, with the majority of them; but time is short. As I said, I intend to pick them up as far as possible in the course of my speech. It is right, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say, that, as the future of Stansted is the occasion for this debate—I noted closely here the reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), and the vigorous


stand taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens)—as Stansted is the occasion for this debate.

Mr. Rippon: No, with respect, it is not the occasion. It is one of the gravest causes for anxiety, but all the local authority associations, and the Surrey County Council, feel equally strongly about the principle of the Order.

Mr. Rodgers: Nothing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says detracts from what I have said, that, whatever the breadth of our debate, the starting point—and this would not be disputed by one who has studied the Press over the last fortnight—is the feeling that this pre-empts the decision of the Roskill Commission.

Mr. Kirk: Mr. Kirk indicated assent.

Mr. Rodgers: I am glad to see the hon. Member nodding—not denying that wider issues are involved, but agreeing that the occasion is Stansted—

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

Mr. Rodgers: No, I will not give way. I have given way twice already and I have only 15 minutes in which to make my speech—

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way he must be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Rodgers: I intend as far as possible to deal with the Stansted question, but I intend to touch on some other matters in passing. Among these is the point of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), when he raised an interesting question and linked it to the 1968 Act. I must make two things clear. The fact that the Act is not yet available is due to the problem which Her Majesty's Stationery Office has faced, with the rush of legislation which received the Royal Assent a short time ago. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, this is not a matter for my Department or for that of my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that his point, which is perfectly fair, has been noted.
Second, he asked—I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield)

should endorse this—why we should have this debate so soon. I must make it clear that this is a Supply Day and that the time of the debate is something for the Opposition and not for the Government.

Mr. Corfield: On a point or order. This is a Prayer and therefore we are confined to the time allotted after the Order is laid.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Mr. Rodgers: There is plenty of time for this debate to have taken place at a later stage. The fact that it is taking place today is due to a decision of the Opposition, taken in the normal way for business on a Supply Day.

Mr. Lubbock: May I remind the hon. Member that the County Councils Association in its memorandum, a copy of which he has no doubt received, states that it has never been the case that the Association is concerned that the new Order will be used to by-pass the Roskill Commission on the location of London's third airport. Will he therefore cease giving the impression that this debate is entirely about Stansted and turn to wider issues?

Mr. Rodgers: I did not say, and the record will show that I did not say, that this debate is entirely about Stansted. I said that the occasion for this debate was concern—and I admitted that it was a proper public concern—with the danger that the decisions of the Roskill Commission might be pre-empted. That is why I wish to turn for the greater part of my speech to the situation about Stansted.
When in February the Government reopened the question of the siting of the third London Airport, there was no suggestion that Stansted should be placed in some kind of deep freeze and that it should be exempted from the effects of the inexorable growth of air traffic in the South-East. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden was very fair in admitting that this was the case.
Pending the long-term solution, it is reasonable that Stansted should take its share of this growth, as well as hard-pressed Heathrow, to say nothing of its surrounding population, Gatwick, Luton,


Southend and other minor aerodromes—that is, provided that the development of Stansted in no way pre-empts the decision on the third London airport. The extent of this growth over the next few years will clearly depend upon demand and the physical availability of facilities. Demand is, admittedly, not easy to assess. It depends on the commercial judgments of airlines, and their fortunes, and the general trend of air traffic.
However, the best judgment that we, and the British Airports Authority, can form is that air transport movements at Stansted will increase from 2,600 a year at present to about 5,000 in 1972, that is about two years after the time that the Roskill Commission is expected to report. Expressed as a percentage, this rate of growth is relatively high, but it is a percentage increase applied to what in aviation terms is a very small starting figure. The 5,000 movements expected at Stansted in 1972 may be contrasted with the present annual figures of air transport movements at Heathrow of 230,000, Gatwick 38,000, Glasgow 34,500, Manchester 35,000 and Luton short of 8,000.
In addition, Stansted attracts at present some 28,000 testing and training flights a year, together with some 7,500 movements attributable to private and official flights, or some 35,500 non-air transport movements in all. The growth in this class of traffic, which makes little demand on ground facilities, is difficult to predict but is unlikely to exceed 45,000 in 1972.
Thus—and this is the nub of our discussion as it relates to Stansted—as regards all types of movement the increase will be from about 38,000 at present to about 50,000 in 1972.
As regards the other possible restraint on growth, the capacity of the passenger terminal building, it is here that the figure of 5,000 air transport movements by 1972 is relevant, not the total movements inflated by the large element of testing and training flights. The Essex County Council—I hope that the House will note this—despite their continuing opposition to the development of the third London airport at Stansted, having fairly and responsibly recognised the need to cater for some growth and have given the Authority planning permission to erect a small passenger terminal estimated to cost about £250,000. The hon. Member

for Saffron Walden referred to the present situation of Stansted as an areonautical slum. I agree with him. This new development will enable the Authority to remove a collection of Nissen huts which are an eyesore to everybody who visits the airport.
This terminal is designed to handle 600 passengers—300 in each direction—in an hour, as against the Gatwick terminal's figure of 3,400 passengers at one time and Heathrow's 7,500. To put it another way, a rough estimate is that the Stansted terminal should be able to handle 400,000 passengers a year, as against the present figure of 130,000, which compares with 13 million at Heathrow, two million at Gatwick, well over one million at Manchester, much the same at Glasgow and about 400,000 at Luton.
Thus the new and approved terminal should be able to cater for all the expected Stansted traffic for some years to come, and at least until 1972. I have spoken to Mr. Masefield within the last half hour. I referred him to page 63 of his Report and asked him, as the Government were asked this afternoon, what further expansion he has in mind. He made it perfectly clear that he does not expect any need before 1974—except, perhaps, for a duty-free shop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is, no further development of the terminal building before 1974.
At this point I might stop, on the ground that speculation is irrelevant, because it is so clear that there is no question at all of the sort of development of Stansted, before we have the recommendations of the Roskill Commission, which has been suggested in some quarters. But because there is some misapprehension about this, let us just suppose that the B.A.A., after all, decided that they wanted some significant new facilities.
The position now—in the light of the undertaking given by the B.A.A., which my right hon. Friend has given to the House—is as follows: The B.A.A. would first consult the local planning authority giving it two months to comment—and plenty of time for public discussion. If the planning authority objected, it could make an Article 4 direction. If my right hon. Friend then confirmed this direction, the normal planning procedures,


including, if necessary, a public inquiry would be invoked. Finally—this undertaking was further given this afternoon—if the original intention of the B.A.A. were frustrated and they were refused permission to develop, no question of compensation could arise. In my view, in all these circumstances, the safeguards seem to be pretty watertight.
My right hon. Friend spelt out six clear safeguards which I hope will, on reflection, reassure many of those who have feared that this Order would lead to the backdoor development of Stansted and the outflanking, at least in spirit, of the Roskill Commission. The first relates to the powers of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Irrespective of where the capital may come from, he must authorise any capital expenditure for other than very minor developments. He has given a clear commitment that he does not intend to do so in the period before the Roskill Commission reports.
I have the greatest sympathy, as have both of my right hon. Friends, with the need to recognise the wide implications of the growth of air traffic, especially up to the point, perhaps 10 years ahead, when a new generation of aircraft will take over—a good deal quieter, we hope, as a result of the leadership which Britain has given internationally on noise certification. The need in this—a central issue which should have been in our minds today—is to strike a reasonable balance which will take full account of amenity but not, at the same time, check the development of a civil aviation industry which is vital to this country's prosperity and which must be safe in its operating methods.
A week ago we learned with regret of the collapse of one of our major independent airlines. It is not the Government's wish to see the industry, private and public, in difficulties through operating in an environment in which it cannot succeed. There are many factors here, but we must be aware that restrictions on flying or the inadequacy of airport facilities are relevant. It should be borne in mind that one of our remaining independents, Channel Airways, moved to Stansted precisely to make its jet operations more economic. The defence of amenity could not be taken to the

point where aircraft were effectively grounded, any more than the demands of aviation could be allowed to prevail to the point where they made life hardly worth living.
Although Essex County Council did not initially see the necessity for establishing a consultative committee at Stansted, it has agreed with the British Airports Authority that this would now be desirable. The Authority and Essex County Council are now deciding on the local authority membership of the committee, and it is hoped that the first meeting will be held in the near future. I welcome this, as I hope the whole House does.
I am inclined to the view that despite some of the acrimony caused by the wider issues which have been in the minds of some hon. Members, there is no essential dispute on this question of balance either across the Floor of the House or between the interests within each party. If we concede that there is a need for balance, perhaps we see the position better now, and where the balance should be struck.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

Mr. Rodgers: I regret that the time available—

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rodgers: —does not enable me—

Mr. Lubbock: May I intervene?

Mr. Rodgers: —to answer all the questions that have been asked to the satisfaction—[Interruption.]—of all hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) must not argue by giving a running commentary.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Orpington had an opportunity of speaking earlier in the debate.
In so far as points have been made which have not been answered, I assure the House that we shall endeavour to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are completely satisfied. It would be testing the tolerance of the


House were I to seek to deal with all the points that have been raised, many of them going a great deal wider than the Order and many of them not bearing on the real matters at stake.
The Government have taken note of all that has been said, including the general feeling of the House about future airport development. I hope that, in return, a sense of proportion will prevail and that, given the clear explanations of the intentions and limitations of the

Order, and bearing in mind its purpose, the House will support it.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1623), dated 14th October, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October, in the last session of Parliament, be annulled:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 287.

Division No. 5]
AYES
[7.6 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mawby, Ray


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bell, Ronald
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp;Fhm)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blaker, Peter
Grimond Rt. Hn. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gurden, Harold
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clegg, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn Sir Alec
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Silvester, Frederick


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, W. H.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith




Stodart, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Teeling, Sir William
Ward, Dame Irene
Wright, Esmond


Temple, John M.
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, N. R.


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Tilney, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Alldritt, Walter
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Alfen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Ensor, David
Kenyon, Clifford


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Finch, Harold
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnes, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Ledger, Ron


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blackburn, F.
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Booth, Albert
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Boston, Terence
Gardner, Tony
Mabon Dr. J. Dickon


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
McBride, Neil


Boyden, James
Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacDermot, Niall


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamling, William
Manuel, Archie


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hannan, Willam
Mapp, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Chapman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Coe, Denis
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mendelson, John


Conian, Bernard
Hilton, W. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hobden, Dennis
Millan, Bruce


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Molloy, William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moonman, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Neal, Harold


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Angelsey)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Dempsey, James
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dickens, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dobson, Ray
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Doig, Peter
Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dunnett, Jack
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles




Park, Trevor
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Urwin, T. W.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Rose, Paul
Varley, Eric G.


Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Pavitt, Laurence
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Pentland, Norman
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Probert, Arthur
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Randall, Harry
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rees, Merlyn
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swingler, Stephen
Winnick, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, Dick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thornton, Ernest



Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Charles Grey and


Roebuck, Roy
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ORGANISATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the need for a national emergency organisation, or perhaps a better phrase might be the need for a nation-wide organisation capable of action in the sort of emergencies that we have recently seen, with appropriate equipment, trained personnel, and so on, within its command. The emergencies that I have in mind are the disasters of floods, excessive snow, hurricanes, extensive fires, train, plane and multiple car crashes, landslides, oil slicks, and the like—the sort of incidents which happen all too regularly but which always seem to take us by surprise.
We have had the recent floods in the South-West and in the South-East, and one thinks back a few years to Canvey Island and Lynmouth. We have had hurricanes in Scotland. There was the Hither Green train crash, Aberfan, the "Torrey Canyon", and the frightening spread of foot and mouth disease. All these are national emergencies about which I think we ought now to think on a national basis, because we can be almost as sure that the unexpected will happen as that we shall be unprepared to deal with it when it does happen.
Even comparatively minor emergencies such as a sudden heavy snowfall, of the icing up of the roads or the railway points catch us with our organisational pants down, if I can express it in that way. There is a traffic chaos, the loss of thousands of hours of working time by people getting to and from their work and the loss of, I suppose, millions of £s in productivity.
Hon. and right hon. Members who have relatives or friends abroad will appreciate that it adds insult to injury when a brother-in-law of mine invariably writes to me from Canada saying how they deal with these things there. They have a full warning system, they know when bad weather is coming, everybody is at action stations before the gale or the snowstorm arrives and all is expertly organised.
I doubt whether their emergencies are more frequent than ours. Perhaps ours are more varied and therefore we need a more versatile organisation, but an organisation here on something like the same lines is neither physically nor economically impossible. I wonder whether we can afford further delay, having regard to the way in which disasters cause so much loss of life, so much loss of property, and so much loss of productivity.
I do not wish to include wartime emergencies because I think that would be going beyond the compass of an acceptable speech, but I cannot help commenting


that the Government's cuts in our wartime protective forces have severely reduced our capacity for coping with peacetime emergencies. I refer to the cuts in the Armed Forces and particularly the Civil Defence Corps. They are wartime forces but they could and did tackle peacetime calamities, as training exercises for wartime if one likes to put it that way. On many occasions they were more than that. They were life-saving operations and home-saving operations, particularly when they were faced with disasters such as floods.
The civil defence teams in the past have been invaluable in boosting the morale of the public on the occasion of calamities of this sort by their purposeful operations, their discipline, the fact that they knew what had to be done, whether in the desolation of flooding or the tangled metal horror of a train crash. The loss of that valuable help in times of need, the dissipation of the skill and training and discipline is one of the tragedies of the Government's disbanding of the voluntary organisations, the Territorials, the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service.
Something more is needed than merely the restoration of those services. First, we need some very definite co-ordination of the efforts of existing voluntary organisations, a central directing and guiding organisation so that their efforts can be made purposeful. Secondly, we may need some sort of emergency rescue service, trained and expertly led. I ask the Government are there not blueprints, comparatively up-to-date, for such a sort of service? I would call it the British Rescue Force. Were they not prepared fairly recently by very experienced officers? Ought they not to be taken out of the pigeonhole in Whitehall and given very serious consideration?
Without some British Rescue Force, what are our present forces to deal with emergencies? The police, of course. For the work of the police in emergencies no praise is too high, but the police, I am sure, would not claim to have the administrative staff to organise other efforts than their own. Furthermore, they will have more responsibilities and more burdens now that they will not have the civil defence teams to assist them. We have the fire brigades, the ambulance service,

with the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance Brigade to assist them, the National Hospital Nursing Reserve, some local government officers still trained in civil defence work and perhaps some industrial civil defence units, the public bodies such as water, electricity and transport undertakings, the W.R.V.S. and similar voluntary bodies. All these do magnificent jobs when called upon to do them in emergency, but how much more effective their efforts would be if there were some national organisation of those efforts around which these voluntary organisations could be grouped and co-ordinated.
Eagerness to help can often give rise to confusion which in turn results in unnecessary loss of life. I remember a small example of this when ambulance men were hurrying to the Hither Green train disaster. Incidentally, they had no radio to call up their colleagues who did not happen to be on duty at the time. They got to the disaster and many eager, willing hands snatched the stretchers out of the ambulances, got the bodies on to the stretchers and went back to the nearest ambulances. Ambulances are not of standard size, nor are the stretchers. The ambulances left the Hither Green train disaster with stretchers protruding through the doors, which were tied up with string. That is a small example, but efficient loading and dispatch of ambulances is a life and death matter. Knowledge and organisation on that might prevent serious loss of life.
Incidentally, in pay, adequate training and pensions we treat ambulance men pretty shabbily having regard to the responsibilities and risks which we expect them to undertake. The ambulance service should be recognised as a senior partner in any national emergencies organisation.
Confusion in the field is perhaps frequently due to confusion in command. In emergencies, certainly in England and Wales, we find an extraordinary anomaly between peacetime and wartime. Responsibility for the planning for peacetime civil emergencies lies with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the operation of those plans falls to the police who are the concern of the Home Office. Responsibility for the planning for wartime emergencies is in the hands


of the Home Office and the operation of those plans is carried out by the local authorities who are the concern of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This anomaly should be corrected.
I should have thought that the peacetime organisation for emergency should be in the hands of special officers of the local authorities, plus a small expert staff within a recognised department of local government—financed, not by the ratepayer, but by the taxpayer because we are talking of national emergencies. A regional structure would be necessary; most of the voluntary organisations have a regional structure. There should be a national headquarters giving cohesion, guidance, training, financial help and, above all, the inspiration of leadership. If there is to be such an organisation, surely it will be right to create it quickly before disappointed members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service drift away from voluntary service.
Some areas have held their volunteers by turning Civil Defence Corps into the Voluntary Civil Aid Service. It has been very disappointing that from Whitehall there has been discouragement to local authorities to do that. I would describe that discouragement as stupidity, whether it be at the administrative level or at ministerial level. Birmingham, Sussex, East Suffolk, Devon, Somerset, Cornwall, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire—all these local authorities have sought to hold together their voluntary services by this Voluntary Civil Aid Service, and it should be encouraged.
Although we must make every effort to retain the services of the experienced and devoted voluntary workers, I think something more than that is needed now. What is needed is a new enthusiasm, especially among the young people. By liaison with youth organisations, the universities, the top forms in the schools, we could gain as enthusiastic support for something to fill the gap left by disbandment of the civil defence and the Auxiliary Fire Service—enthusiasm such as organisations like V.S.O. have from the young people. Indeed, there is not only the excitement and satisfaction of helping in emergencies in Britain. The example of the civil defence teams going to Turkey and Italy could be copied. To be trained, not with weapons for destruct

tion, but with equipment for rescue, should have its appeal among modern youth.
The reason for thinking nationally in organising for emergencies is not necessarily to obtain uniformity. Indeed, any emergency force organisation we have must be versatile. A nation-wide organisation is necessary to ensure adequate coverage—coverage of the whole country. Disaster can happen where helpers are thin on the ground. Perhaps mobile columns are some solution to this, from a headquarters organisation or a regional centre, to deal with cases where recruiting in any particular area is not covering all the work that has to be done there.
It is no good having all this emergency organisation unless it can be put into operation effectively and rapidly. There are two aspects of this—first, gaining the information, and, secondly, communicating speedily. There is the kind of emergency which can be forecast—the weather emergency. There is the kind of emergency which cannot be forecast—train disasters and that sort of thing. There is the mixed type of emergency where forecasts are useful after the event, such as the oil slick from the "Torrey Canyon".
Here we must bring the Meteorological Office into very effective partnership with any national organisation, and it must be provided with adequate tools for the job, in particular the right kind of computer. I understand that the Meteorological Office at present is still trying to decide what modern computer it shall have and that it will not get that modern computer until 1971. In the meantime it is using a computer 40 times slower than that used in America, France and Germany.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State about the use of the C.D.C. 6600, which is the largest computer in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of weather forecasting. He told me that the necessity was for something 20 times as large as the Atlas and not something about five times as large, which is all that the C.D.C. 6600 can manage. Therefore, we shall have to wait for a new generation of computers to develop before we can cope with the existing models being prepared by the Meteorological Office.

Mr. Page: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The computer of which I was speaking is not very far from the House. It is being used, not only in America, France and Germany, but at S.I.A. next door to Victoria Station.

Mr. Lubbock: That is the one I am talking about.

Mr. Page: It is 40 times quicker than that used by the Meteorological Office at present. I know that the Meteorological Office uses the Atlas computer, but that is six times slower than the one I am speaking about and it is not in general use with the Meteorological Office.
The fact is that in the recent floods much damage could have been saved if we had had an efficient warning system. Are the Government starving the Meteorological Office of money for the computer that it wants? It is essential that an emergencies organisation should not be hampered by the absence of information and anticipation which the best computers can provide.
Having got that information, it must be dispatched with speed to the right quarters. In the South-East floods the Meteorological Office had its forecast a good many hours before the event. Because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for flood prevention, the Meteorological Office informed the river authorities of its forecast, I understand. As far as I know, the river authorities have no administration for setting emergency organisation into operation; so they kept the information to themselves. It may be that an elaborate radio system is required for getting this information out to the right people.
What about the R.O.C.? I hardly dare mention it, for fear that the Government will remember that they have failed to disband the Corps or put it into moth balls. The Royal Observer Corps has a good communications system on a network of stations 20 miles apart. Could not that be developed and utilised for the purpose of what I called earlier a British Rescue Force? Accurate information instantly communicated to the right people is what is required, and there should be no Treasury quibble about the finance to ensure that.
The Government's financial arrangements in connection with recent disasters have been very disappointing and very dilatory. I thought that the Minister's remark at Question Time today—I do not know whether it was a complaint or an excuse—that there were 40 flood relief funds in the South-East was very naive. He was apparently suggesting that those relief funds could look after the victims of the emergencies. The local authorities cannot decide on administering those funds until they know what the Government intend to do by way of helping those who have suffered. It is now two months since the South-East floods, and the Government have made no definite statement on how they intend to help financially.
In face of all the work to be done to cope more efficiently with emergencies, the Answers which the Minister of Housing and Local Government has given to Parliamentary Questions recently on action to be taken in future with regard to flooding have shown a failure to grasp the magnitude of the problem. He has said that he will issue a circular of guidance to local authorities. There has been no assurance of positive Government action. Is a Departmental circular the extent of the Government's thinking on this subject, the extent of their comprehension of the anxiety of the public over what has happened in recent disasters?
I hope that we shall be assured today that that is not so and that the Government will put into operation without delay and without financial skimping a nation-wide organisation to meet those emergencies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the second of two debates of roughly the same length. In the first I was able to call 16 hon. Members because speeches were brief. I shall be able to call everybody who wishes to speak if speeches are reasonably brief.

7.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): It may help the House if at this stage of the debate I try, first, to set in perspective the disasters and emergencies which arise in this country—in other words, what we are dealing with—and second, describe in outline the arrangements


which are made locally and nationally to deal with them.
National and other disasters, when they come, receive a great deal of publicity and are the focus, quite properly, of much attention while they last. We should recognise, however, that we are fortunate as a nation in that large-scale disasters seldom occur in our land. We do not have earthquakes, forest fires, avalanches and volcanic eruptions. We have our troubles, but, looking back over the years, there have been only a few which were on a large scale, like this year's floods, the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon", the Aberfan disaster, the Glasgow storm of January this year, and the East Coast floods in 1953.
The use of ever larger forms of transport by sea, air and land and the movement of highly dangerous substances may bring new problems which we ought to be alert to cope with, but we should nevertheless not base our plans on the premise that major disasters, national or man-made, are frequent.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) mentioned Canada. The weather situation in Canada is different from ours. We have to look at our problem in the light of the sort of situation which we experience in this country.
A second consideration is that no two major emergencies are at all alike in their circumstances and effects. It is necessary to refer only to the East Coast floods, different from Aberfan, and different again from the "Torrey Canyon" shipwreck. It follows that the Government's approach should not be to prepare detailed plans for every emergency which may or may not arise.
If the possibility of a particular emergency arising can be foreseen, the right course is not to prepare a contingency plan but to take steps to prevent it. Like crime, emergencies are best prevented. As the House knows, there are many safety and other measures in operation to prevent the occurrence of accidents which could lead to large-scale disasters. After the East Coast floods in 1953, the Storm Tide Warning Service was set up, and standing arrangements which are reviewed every year, were made for warning the public. But—and this was no less important—the coastal defences were

built up so that a flood tide as high as that of 1953 would not now have effect on anything like the same scale.
If the right measures are taken to prevent such disasters as can be foreseen, those that do occur will be the result either of a residual risk which is too remote to be guarded against or will be unforeseen and unpredictable. For these emergencies it is of over-riding importance that there should be as much flexibility as possible in the organisation available for dealing with such emergencies so that the most appropriate arrangements may be made in the particular circumstances which arise.
I come now to the arrangements, national and local. In any emergency the rôle of the police, particularly in the opening phase, is likely to be crucial. It is to the police service that the public always turn first for assistance when in distress. Police officers on patrol on foot or by vehicle are likely to be the first persons with authority on the scene of a disaster, and reports of what has happened are likely to be received first at police stations. The police are able to make use of their wireless communications to assemble rapidly a force of men and vehicles to take immediate action where help is needed, and to call in other services such as the fire and ambulance services to assist.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Observer Corps, for which in my new post I have some responsibility, as I did when concerned with the R.A.F. The communications system of the fire service and the police is far better than that of the Royal Observer Corps. The hon. Gentleman used the wrong example. The communications system of the Royal Observer Corps is geared to war, whereas that of the fire service and the police is geared to the civilian organisation and is much better for this purpose.
The police will also establish, where necessary, traffic control points and information posts, and direct the removal of casualties to places where they can be dealt with expeditiously. It is through the chief constables that the assistance of the Armed Services would be obtained. It is from the senior police officer in charge on the spot that the first comprehensive assessments of the extent of the disaster would be obtained to enable the local authority and, if necessary, the


central Government to decide what further action was likely to be necessary. It is the availability of a widespread communications system in particular which will enable the police always to make a major contribution.
Most disasters are well within the capacity of local authorities with the resources at their disposal in the fire service and the ambulance service, to which the hon. Gentleman gave well deserved praise, assisted as necessary by neighbouring police and other forces and the Armed Services. For railway accidents, these other services include the railways themselves which have their own accident organisation. In such an event as the Aberfan disaster, the National Coal Board has its own organisation. When there are multiple crashes on the motorway, the fire services are soon involved, as they are in the collapse of buildings or bridges, local floods, and so on.
Local authorities are experienced in dealing with such events, and their services are so organised as to be able to adapt themselves rapidly to deal with events which may differ widely in character. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the weather. I shall return to that in a few minutes, but I have a comment to make with reference to notification of unusual weather to local authorities. We hear a lot nowadays about letting local authorities do things themselves and not allowing it all to be done centrally. One criterion by which, after nearly three years of responsibility for the Meteorological Office, I should judge a local authority is whether it bothers to pay the minimal amount of money to ensure that it receives a weather forecast to tell it what it should know, and, even more, whether it makes arrangements to receive the report in the middle of the night, for instance, so that it may do something. I do not believe that it is the job of the national Government to do that. If we talk in this place about devolution, one may add the comment that in many cases local authorities ought to pull their socks up in that sense.

Mr. John Ellis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rees: I know that I am echoing the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), who

chased me no end a few weeks ago on another matter in this connection.
It is important to put the responsibilities of the Armed Services in perspective. However, before coming to that aspect of the matter in detail, I shall refer to a specific example which is related to the knowledge which I gained before my translation a short time ago. When the Lewisham area had its flooding a short time ago, the police were on to Woolwich and Woolwich stepped in to help before the organisation which we had at the Ministry of Defence was brought into play. Every local commander, whether, Navy, Army or Air Force, is prepared to go in straight away when asked to do so. I was at St. Athan in South Wales on the day of the Aberfan disaster. Immediately the news came in, the air officer commanding Wales stood by a large number of men, vehicles and everything else ready to be called in. The fact that he was not called upon was no fault of his; it was just that the other organisation was moving into play.
Unit and formation commanders have instructions that if they receive an application for help from the civil authorities when there is danger, they are to provide assistance without reference to higher authority. There is at all times a duty officer of each Service in the Ministry of Defence. If any point regarding assistance is raised out of office hours, it will normally be dealt with by the general duty staff officer who is there. He will usually be able, if necessary, to consult an officer of the Directorate of Army Staff by telephone, but this would not be necessary if it was an emergency.
All chief constables know whom to contact. When the Armed Forces are used in civil emergencies, they act in support of the civil authorities. I am advised—I have to put in that way now, I suppose—that the Services would not wish to be made responsible for deciding between competing claims for help. When decisions of this kind are needed, they must be taken up by the civil authorities, in the more serious events by Ministers, sometimes by local authorities, and during the dangerous phase of an emergency by the police.

Mr. Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of Service experience. Perhaps he will tell us what


training Air Force personnel have in dealing with civil emergencies. No doubt, they do an excellent ad hoc job, but do they lack training for this sort of work?

Mr. Rees: I give one example. The Royal Air Force has large blowers for warming up the engines of V Bombers. At the time of the recent floods, Air Force units were down there like a shot. They knew how to use these blowers, which could dry a house out very much more quickly than—as one R.A.F. man put it to me—the "piddling little things used by the civilians". That is one way in which the Services can help. Next, the Engineers can do bridge-building. In the Ministry of Defence, at the time of the last floods, the operations room was—if one cares to call it that—playing a war game and bringing in the Army, including the T & AVR—not the T & AVR III for whom I have high regard, but engineers for the building of bridges and so on. I know very well now—if I did not know before—that in emergencies the Services have a skill and readiness which can be of enormous value to the civil authorities and population.

Mr. Michael Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in most disasters of that kind, the members of the Armed Services who are most useful are the sappers, and there are no sappers stationed in Scotland?

Mr. Rees: I just cannot deal with that point, but I am certain it is something that needs to be looked at; the Services would insist that they deployed their men in such a way for Service matters. But this is something which perhaps my right hon. Friend who is responsible for the military disposition would look at.
The Royal Air Force rescues every year 500 civilians. The helicopter service which is there for military purposes is used for civilian purposes and in marginal cases without cost.
I had not thought that the Meteorological Office would be mentioned, but until a week ago it was also my responsibility. If the new computer which the Meteorological Office requires and which is now going out to tender were to be in operation now—I know the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is conversant with the technical details—then the order for it

would need to have been placed four or five years ago. If there is a dereliction in duty, it certainly is not a dereliction by this Government. There is a computer which is used; it cannot be used widely, but steps have now been taken.
A point I would like to take up on behalf of an organisation for which I had former responsibility—and my hon Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West has chased me about the question of the Meteorological Office a good deal in recent years—is that the forecasting at the time of the floods was almost impeccable, and when the hon. Member criticises the Meteorological Office for that he is being grossly unfair. There are times when everybody complains about the Meteorological Office, it is something that people can laugh at, but their forecasting about the floods on this occasion was first-rate.

Mr. Graham Page: I did pay the Meteorological Office the tribute that they had their forecast several hours before the event, and that they conveyed the information, but conveyed it to the wrong people, the people they were told to convey it to but not to those who would act upon it. Surely time is available on these vast computers which can be hired for the Meteorological Office. Could that not be arranged until the Meteorological Office has its own computer?

Mr. Rees: I raised this matter at the time and, while I am now without the benefit of firm advice, I am pretty sure that I was advised then by those who know that this would not be the case. The Meteorological Office advised the people who are on their net for advising, and they also gave the flash warnings on the B.B.C., so there again on this occasion they warned the people who should have been warned. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to flood warnings, this is not the responsibility of the Meteorological Office. It cannot be. To use the technical jargon, precipitation they know all about, but if it rains and rains they do not know whether a flood will be caused or not.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: On the morning of Saturday, 14th September, when there were floods in South-East England, there was nothing


special on the 8 o'clock meteorological report. It spoke about heavy rain. There were no flash warnings about floods on that morning; they started at about midday.

Mr. Rees: Without the benefit of the letter which I wrote to the hon. Gentleman at the time, I insist that on that occasion, whether at 8 o'clock or 7 o'clock—we need not play around with an hour—the Meteorological Office had a good forecast and they put it out. Floods are a different matter. It is a question of ground porousness and things of that nature.

Mr. Ellis: Would the Minister agree that it is a matter of terminology? In a certain meteorological situation whereby forecasts are made of periods of heavy and continuous rain—I grant that he cannot use the word for it since this is where the expertise comes in—does he not agree that there should be a tightening up of terminology to portray the fact that we are having more than the usual dirty weather and this may have repercussions? I would be happy with that.

Mr. Rees: I accept the point; it may be that the terminology of the Met. Office should be altered. What I stick to is that a forecast that there will be a flood must be the responsibility ultimately of the river authorities, who are the experts in that matter.
I come to the Services. If help from the Government is needed, this can most often be provided under the normal Departmental arrangements. For example, the arrangements to deal with the foot-and-mouth epidemic were made, quite properly, by the Ministry of Agriculture. Incidentally, many R.A.F. men—and I am sure many Army men as well—did a very dirty and nasty job during the foot-and-mouth epidemic, not a job that they joined the Service to do. This is an example of the Ministry of Agriculture asking for the Services to come in, and where routine orders were put up and the Services helped.
Supervision of the arrangements made in the recent floods was the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. If greater resources are required and there is a need to co-ordinate their use over a wide field, the Gov

have well-established arrangements to come into operation. Responsibility lies with the Home Secretary for co-ordinating action to deal with major civil emergencies which cannot readily be dealt with by one Department. In particular, he is Chairman of the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies, which is responsible for dealing with civil emergencies which are of such magnitude that they affect supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
During the "Torrey Canyon" episode the Ministerial emergency organisation was activated, and when it was over the Government reviewed the working of the general arrangements for dealing with emergencies; and the terms of references of the Ministerial Committee were widened to make it clear that the Committee could be made responsible for the co-ordination of action in respect of any emergency of national importance which called for such co-ordination.
The whole system, including its lines of communication, can be activated quickly if it appears to any Department as a result of a broad assessment of the threat that emergency action on a large scale might have to be taken; but it is essential to underline that these arrangements do not alter the ordinary responsibility of Departmental Ministers who are responsible for preparing plans for foreseeable emergencies which might arise within their own sphere of responsibility, and for co-ordinating action in emergencies within that sphere. It would be impracticable and close to the absurd to provide for the appointment of a Minister to take over the responsibilities of other Ministers whenever a particular emergency arose. It would lead to delay and a great loss of efficiency.
I would like now to refer briefly to the recent floods. My main point is that during that occasion co-ordination was effected originally through the Home Office. It became clear that the local authorities and the police were getting all the help that they required, and from Monday, 16th September, onwards regular reports were made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government by local authorities, the police and the Armed Services. These reports established that as the demand for military help never exceeded the supply—indeed, help was frequently


offered even before it was requested—there was no need to filter requests for military assistance. On that, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture are conducting inquiries into the lessons to be learnt for the future from the floods.
The hon. Gentleman referred to civil defence having been cut. The reduction, however, has not reduced the peacetime capability of the variety of forces under national or local control for dealing with emergencies. I would be the last to deprecate what was done by the civil defence people. The point I wish to make is that for the sort of disaster which I postulated at the beginning the Services and the local authority services, are adequate to deal with the peacetime emergencies that might occur.

Mr. Graham Page: May I get this straight for the record? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is a civil defence organisation which can go into action in the same way as civil defence teams went into action in the past?

Mr. Rees: No. What I am saying is that there are fire brigade and ambulance services and the Services, and, for the sort of national emergencies we have, the view of the Government—and I am accepting the argument put forward recently in the House in terms of nuclear warfare—is that all of the evidence that is available shows that we have the resources to deal with peacetime problems that may or may not arise.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Is the Minister leaving out of his calculations altogether the former civil defence organisation which is now at his request on a care and maintenance basis?

Mr. Rees: I am taking that well into account. I am saying that with the forces which are at our control—police, Armed Forces, the ambulance service—with what the National Coal Board has ready in case of mine disasters and things of that kind, we have sufficient to deal with peace-time disasters and the like. That is precisely what I am arguing.

Sir Frank Pearson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that as long as he

has the support of all his official bodies, he is perfectly happy—

Mr. Rees: Yes.

Sir Frank Pearson: Sir Frank Pearson —and that he does not need voluntary help from the public? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Rees: No. I did not say that. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait and allow me to come to a section of my speech when I deal with the British Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Special Constabulary and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which are voluntary and important. I am arguing that when we had a civil defence organisation there was a civilian pay-off which was valuable. I am not dealing now with the military aspect. I am arguing that we have sufficient now at our command to deal with the civil problems that may or may not arise.

Mr. John Horner: In reference to the Hither Green disaster, to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred, is my hon. Friend aware that the total attendance of auxiliary firemen at that terrible distaster was 11?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the fire service is very great.
I would like to make it clear that I am in no sense deprecating the voluntary activities of civil defence men and women, but I am being asked to deal with the problem of civil emergencies which may or may not occur. I have talked about the police, the fire service, the ambulance service and all the resources of the local authorities.
A dispassionate analysis—not an emotional one—of these disasters, which fits in with what my hon. Friend has said, does not indicate that they have failed to meet the need. I have mentioned the voluntary organisations, which were raised by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) rather earlier than I intended to deal with them. We appreciate the public service of those who are talking about voluntary civil aid societies. I know that discussions and a great deal of talk are going on, but in the context of this debate for dealing with the disasters that we could have in this country,


the Government are satisfied that we can deal with them.
A great deal of equipment which was formerly used by the voluntary bodies is available for use as well. Local authorities have been advised by circular—

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I had experience of the rather terrible disaster in the West Country. Frankly, the conclusion which my hon. Friend or the Ministry has arrived at are not accurate. The employees of the Bristol local authority rallied round. They turned out literally in their hundreds, many of them giving hours of endless overtime, but one still could not cope with the flood water.
Whatever else we may disagree about, I think that there was a rôle for the Auxiliary Fire Service, who could have come in and used the pumps. I saw pumps brought into Bristol from as far away as Staffordshire, but no one had a clue how to use them. When one sees people's houses with 7 ft. of water in them and equipment is available which people perhaps cannot use, it is not conclusive that local authorities can adequately cope.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has referred to floods. The question which arises with flood water 7 ft. high is, who on earth will cope with in it terms of the problem involved in the short run when it is spilled out from rivers? I suggest that this is not a question of the A.F.S. or anybody else. If the fire service which I saw operating in Northumberland yesterday, with the latest equipment, far later than any equipment which the A.F.S. had, could not deal with problems of this kind, certainly no auxiliary body could deal with it.
My general thesis, to which I stick, that the Government can deal with the problems cannot, however, be allowed to cover the fact that there are some disasters, such as flooding, in which there are other considerations to be taken into account, namely, the prevention of flooding, which is a rather different question but something which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been considering of late.
The Government are not complacent about their arrangements for dealing—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite

might laugh. They are laughing at the fire service, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.

Sir Frank Pearson: Let me make the position quite clear. I was laughing at the Government's complacency.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member was laughing at the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Simply because he has an emotional feeling about civil defence, he has no right to laugh in that fashion just because he disagrees with an argument. I have the greatest pride in the Armed Services, which I have just left. They do an excellent job. It ill becomes the hon. Member to laugh and sneer at them, because that is exactly what he is doing.

Sir Frank Pearson: I was not. I was laughing and sneering at the complacency of the Government.

Mr. Rees: I know that the hon. Member and many on his side of the House comprehend what all these services do, but when, in this sense, there is laughter at this sort of thing, I cannot but be angry about it.
There are problems in this respect. There is no room for complacency. The Government believe, however, that we can deal with the problems that arise. There will have to be discussions arising out of the floods, because a particular problem arises there.
At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Crosby raised a point about a blueprint being available to be picked out of the shelves, or something of the sort. I know nothing of that. I think that that suggestion comes from another source. It is a figment of someone's imagination. The hon. Member argued the need for a nation-wide organisation capable of dealing with emergencies. My case is that we have such an organisation. There are problems, but this organisation is basic and something on which we can build in the years to come.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: We have listened to the Under-Secretary's explanations about structure, command, communications and co-ordination, which is really the main subject matter with which we are concerned. For me and for my constituents, this is a timely debate


because my constituency, like many other constituencies, suffered severely in the recent floods. If I draw such points as I want to make mainly from that incident, that is my reason for doing so. I am fully aware that this debate comprehends many other types of emergency, examples of which, including rail disasters, foot-and-mouth disease, and so on, have been mentioned.
I suppose that when we talk of a national emergency, we are thinking of something which occurs and which stretches the local and normal services beyond their ability reasonably to cope without additional aid. We are, therefore, asking ourselves whether the structure of command and communication is such that they can call on what they need with the minimum of delay and the maximum efficiency when these emergencies occur. By its very nature and definition, an emergency is something which is not easy to predict and its scale, either at the start of the emergency or in its continuing character, is equally difficult to foresee. That is the problem of organisation that faces local authorities, the police voluntary organisations and, ultimately, the Government, too.
What are the questions that we should ask ourselves? I suppose that the obvious one, which is perhaps too detailed and fragmented to be part and parcel of this debate, is how to prevent such things occurring. In such a question, one could be drawn into discussions of railway engineering, the problems facing the National Coal Board, drainage, and so on. That would be a separate subject involving arguments of probability, possibility, cost and the like. I do not, however, propose to deal with those questions now.
Secondly, when a disaster or emergency has occurred, how can we warn people of what is about to occur or is already occurring? Thirdly, how can we organise the rescue services—that is, the immediate problem—and, fourthly, how most quickly, efficiently and humanely can things be restored to normality after the immediate rescue operations have taken place?
The answers to those questions will not be easy. Least of all is it wise to generalise about them, because they are different from place to place and from one emergency to another. There are,

however, some lessons that can be learned about planning, training equipment and, most of all, communications. It is on these that I wish to dwell. If I suggest that things could be better I emphasise that I am in no sense criticising the very notable work which was done by the police, the local authorities, the Armed Forces, the voluntary organisations, and many others in the recent troubles.
The first problem is warning. It is on this subject that I have had the largest number of complaints expressed to me: the immediate warning mechanism. Warning of flooding initially comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, and then out to the police. There is still a considerable inadequacy in this arrangement. If something happens quickly, the police cannot get round on anything like a house-to-house basis. There is need for an additional warning mechanism to get effective distribution of the news of that emergency, particularly in scattered communities, and more especially if the centre of operations is for any reason cut off from the areas mainly affected, as through a bridge coming down, for instance.
One is glad to hear that the Minister of Agriculture will hold on 11th or 12th December a conference of the police, the Meteorological Office and others to consider working arrangements and the lessons to be learned. I hope that the Government will publish—I think they have said they will, but I would like confirmation of this—the findings; I hope they will inform the House about them and will make them immediately available in full to all local authorities, and I hope they will discuss them with voluntary organisations which are concerned as well. One must make information on the methods of warning and advice available, and that conference will have failed if it simply locks its advice up in the relevant Ministerial Departments.
There is need, too, for a definition of responsibility in Whitehall. To give one example. I put down a Question on this subject to the Minister of Housing and Local Government; it was transferred to the Minister of Agriculture; part of the Question was answered by the Minister of Agriculture, for the second half I was referred back to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is not good enough, though I understand the main reason for that on that occasion.
Still on the subject of warnings, there is a need for wider distribution of wireless communication services and training in that. I do not think the police network by itself is adequate in this respect. In the floods, the trouble occurred after darkness, and the crashing silence, except for music, of the B.B.C. gravely irritated many of the people affected. We did not know what was happening. It would have been useful, once the facts were established, if the wireless services could have been used to give advice about what should be done when water came up to power plugs, and so on. That is the sort of thing for which a national broadcasting company could be used and should be used, but was not used properly on that occasion.
Lastly on warnings, can the Government impress on all with whom they come into contact the importance, which is drilled into the people in the Services, of the accurate collection of information and its immediate distribution to all the places affected by an emergency? Sitting on information once it has been collected renders that information totally and utterly useless. It must be passed on through the proper channels.
My next point is, how to organise the rescue services. I would make one point immediately, that the need for a clearly defined chain of command is vital, and this chain of command, in every locality, must be known. Doubtless it usually is; sometimes it is not. A chain of command and of communications are necessary for effective action. The Minister emphasised that the chain of command remains, unless what has occurred is a massive disaster, in local hands. The local people know their area; they know its topography; they know the people with whom they have to communicate. It is vital that the chain of command should rest in local hands.
The police then come in. They deal with the immediate situation, but it is also necessary to have a reserve of people to cope later on.

Mr. Lubbock: I wonder whether the hon. Member finds any difficulty in his area in getting the help of responsible local authority officers on a Sunday. It was quite impossible to ring them up; their telephone numbers were not listed in the emergency numbers in the tele

phone directory. I absolutely agree that local authorities should have the responsibility for seeing that the emergency services are got into action, but there must be for members of the general public affected a direct chain of communications with them.

Mr. Hornby: That is certainly true, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a very real problem of communications which I personally found on the Sunday morning in question. It was not the fault of the local authority officers concerned, who were out and about doing everything they could. It was because the telephone service had gone out of action. The problem of communications is a very real one, particularly if the telephone is totally cut off, as happened in the floods, for then one part of an affected area is unable to communicate with another.
Following my point on the importance of local command, Service units, when they come into an area, must come under that local command, so that they can be directed with the help of the local knowledge available.
I would ask the Government to consider the distribution of wireless sets, especially considering the difficulties which arise when the telephone system has gone out of action. There arises the whole problem of directing the relief work and the rescue work, for which quick communications are essential. I suggest to the Government that it is worth while their considering whether some of the voluntary organisations should be asked to consider taking on training in wireless telegraphy. The Women's Transport Service, I believe, has an arrangement with the Metropolitan Police for precisely this, but I think there are other organisations which might well consider doing this type of work which could well be used.
The next point, on the rescue services, is that of equipment and the difficult question of storing it locally and knowing where to find it, and of storing locally things which one needs but has not got oneself. One comes straight back to the question of local authorities knowing with whom to get in touch for key equipment—as, in case of the flooding, pumping and drying equipment and, in some cases, haulage equipment. Some of this


can be easily found locally, but its availability needs to be registered so that people may know where things likely to be needed are most readily available.
Lastly, manpower, skilled and unskilled, is needed in emergencies. The fund of good will and willingness to help amongst voluntary organisations and amongst the unorganised is very great indeed. It is better to tap the willingness of existing organisations than to build a new and totally separate rescue corps.
There is a need to see that first-aid training, for instance, should be a nationwide responsibility, based on schools and elsewhere and developed through the voluntary organisations. Local authorities should have stand-by rosters of voluntary bodies, and people willing to cope. I think this is done in some places.
Finally, there is the question of restoring things to normality, and here one comes to finance. When an area is hard hit by a disaster it is important that the Government should acknowledge that the normal programmes of road building, school building, and so on, are not to be kept back by that disaster, and that they will help to make them good.
No one in a debate like this should under-estimate the responsibilities of individuals to take normal insurance precautions. Equally, losses have been very great, and problems are very difficult in areas liable to flooding. I would ask the Government to hurry with their announcement about their reaction to local authority sponsored funds.
To summarise, I suggest the use of existing organisations, which should remain locally organised for as long as possible; the chain of command and sources of information should be absolutely clear; there should be practice drills, as there are fire drills, for emergencies, as a normal precaution; and, thirdly, the command structure should be locally understood. Finally, the warning and communications systems should be improved. Neither are fully adequate at present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that this is a very short debate. I hope that hon. Members will speak briefly.

8.21 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr.

Hornby) made a number of interesting points, and I particularly want to endorse the categorisation of the process of rescue, to which he referred, namely, forecasting, the rescue and rehabilitation and recompense. He made out a fair case for his non-political recommendations. I want to open up a rather different aspect of the problem of civil national disasters. It is very difficult to quantify what is national. I do not know.
There were floods affecting 200 families in my constituency. The number of people was small, but the size of disaster to them was catastrophic. I was requested several times to ask that Parliament should be recalled. It did not seem to me to be the most appropriate way of organising a national disaster organisation. The sad fact is that for people involved in a disaster, the problems arise after the publicity ceases. Once a thing is off the front page and the photographs are yellowing in the cupboard, this is when people have to face the problems of non-insured goods and uninsured relatives with long periods of unemployment following injury.
It is that aspect, which I have experienced in Wandsworth, Central, which has left me convinced that what we are most lacking is the kind of help needed here. Many of the points raised by hon. Members opposite are sound, but many, I am afraid, are unsound. To talk about disasters as requiring comprehensive services only when they are national disasters is to overlook the fact that even the most minor fire will often involve a wide diversity of services. The problem of integration of those services is not widely different simply because the size of the disaster varies.
Moreover, to talk about a chain of command is to think in rigid and inflexible military terms. In a civil situation of this sort, involving interdisciplinary relationships, in which there may be chains of command within one discipline, within the fire service, or the police service, there is the necessity for intercommunication at many different levels between each service. The chief superintendent of the police will need to communicate with the town clerk, the town clerk with his chief welfare officer, the chief welfare officer with the ambulance service. To talk about a chain of command when one is dealing with a series


of interlinked commands, all covering the surface of a sphere, is to over-simplify an immensely complicated situation.
It is after this is over that the trouble really begins. If we are to have a national organisation of some sort, then my experience leaves me in no doubt that the thing we are to look for is a national funding organisation, a finance organisation. It can be called the National Disaster Fund if that is thought appropriate. In discussing this with the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing I was advised that two major objections were seen to lie against the establishment of such a fund. I am bound to say that I accept neither.
The National Disaster Fund, it was thought, would create difficulties of administration and distribution, because it would not be easy to identify which was a disaster worthy of bestowing funds upon. I deny this. If it is not beyond the imagination of those who administer the Ford Foundation to distribute that fund, it ought not to be beyond the bounds of the imagination and responsibility of any publicly accepted group of trustees to accept the responsibility of deciding what is worthy of the bestowal of these funds. The other objection is that, by failing to attach a specific purpose to the collection of such a fund, it would deny the public interest which would be necessary to create a fund of reasonable size. This is not how I see such a fund operating.
The essential feature of such a fund would be to ensure that a large-scale catastrophe which is national, not in its geographic sense, but in its implications, should not be borne by the victims of the disaster, or even by the local ratepayers and do-gooders. We seek to ensure only that what is bestowed should be spread as widely as possible through the whole community. This is a procedure which I would have thought we on this side of the House would find easy to accept. If we do not have a National Disaster Fund, we have to resort to the more complex, and often restricted machinery of for instance the social services or the Department of Health and Social Security.
The argument for a fund is one which ought to be looked at much more sympathetically, particularly in the light of, for instance, Aberfan and the consequent deprivations of the "Torrey Canyon".

There is one generality about all great local catastrophes which is not true of other aspects of disaster. The difficulties of generalising about a railway accident, heavy rains or floods have been emphasised, but there is this one generality about all catastrophes, which is that the financial consequences affect very viciously people in lower income groups.
It is those people who tend to live in houses in areas more likely to be flooded, and these people are more sensitive to the disaster which affects them, when their families are individually involved in death and injury. As to the collection of a National Disaster Fund, there is a good deal of money lying about which ought to be, by legislation if necessary, put into such a Fund. There ought to be Exchequer funding of such a collection. Equally, we could well look at the many out-of-date charity collections, some of quite large dimensions, which no longer have a social applicability. If by legislation we could ensure that those dormant funds could be brought in, let us do so. Remember that this is a continuing process, charities continue to go out of applicability, but the funds remain and often accumulate in a startling way.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Member aware that the "Sinking of the Birkenhead Fund", set up for a disaster which happened 100 years ago, has still not been wound up?

Dr. Kerr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know of other similar cases, many of them comparatively small local charities. There is a case for treating them in this way.
As for the challenge that the public would show no interest in a fund of this nature, I believe this is untrue if it can be shown that, at times of national disaster, the money is being distributed rapidly. The whole nub of the problem is the rapidity with which available finance is distributed to people in great difficulty. It is no use the Government saying, "We will give £175,000 six months hence". When people have no sheets and blankets and their beds have been washed down the local sewer they want the money straight away, and it is not always available from local funds or from the Ministry of Social Security.
Let us look into this proposal. I believe this could be a most constructive


development in the light of recent unhappy occurrences in this country. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us something about this aspect.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: One industry which would support the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), an industry which includes many in the lower income group, is agriculture. I believe that a national disaster fund would be of inestimable benefit to the farming industry. I think, equally, that those who come from farming areas will be disappointed with the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, who made only one passing reference to agriculture, namely, the occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease, a disaster which is spectacular, arouses emotions, and catches people's imagination. There is no doubt that many of the farmers who suffered from this appalling disaster will eventually have adequate compensation.
We all know how appalling it must be for someone to lose his home, or at least the use of his home, as a result of flood, but many lose their livelihood as a result of flood, and this is more difficult to portray and to get on the front pages of the newspapers or on the television screen, unless livestock are drowned. That does not apply to arable farming. I mention this particularly because of one area where the storm began last July and did not end until 5·37 ins. of rain had fallen. I am told that no other area has been afflicted quite so much in one rain storm.

Mr. Wilkins: The West Country was worse with 7 ins. in one rainstorm.

Mr. Body: After that rainstorm it eased up, but soon afterwards it started again. It rained throughout most of August, and in the middle of September saturation point was reached on the land in this area. This has never been known before in any farming area. If ever saturation is reached on farming land—and it happens perhaps only once in 10 years—it is invariably at the end of November or December, or, if it is an exceptional flood, perhaps in February or March. I am speaking about the Parts

of Holland in Lincolnshire. Some farmers lost up to £5,000 of their income because their land had been drowned and remained drowned for a long time. They were not large farmers. In the result, hundreds of acres of potatoes were laid waste. No method of mechanical cropping is now possible over much of that area to save the crop, so volunteers are needed to take off their coats and get down to it manually. However, that is not a practical possibility as matters stand. It was urged that the Army might be brought in, but there are obvious difficulties in doing that.
I believe that we should have an organisation—call it a national emergencies organisation—which would be fitted to deal with this kind of disaster.
I have singled out one particular disaster as an example, but there are many others affecting small farmers which do not hit the headlines. They often take place when other events in the world shrink their importance and perhaps they are only reported in local newspapers. They are none the less real, and I believe that we can save people in that situation only if there is a national emergency organisation.
My one complaint about it is the name. I think that nothing could be more uninspiring than that. I think that something better could be devised by way of a name. Equally, I am convinced that there is an overwhelming case for a national disaster fund. I hope, therefore, that before the debate ends we shall have a more sympathetic response from the Government than we have had so far.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Horner: I suggest to the House that there is a national emergency organisation, and that the House would be most usefully employing its time if it began to consider ways of spending more money on that service rather than on building other organisations. In the debate tonight little attention has been paid to the single emergency organisation which exists, and which can form the nucleus, if it were felt to be necessary, of any such organisation as has been suggested by both sides of the House. I refer, of course, to the fire service.
In 1958 the fire service attended 21,500 special service calls. They were emergencies. I am not referring to fires. They were emergencies extending from floods to aircraft disasters. In 1967 there were 49,500 such emergencies, from Aberfan to train crashes. The London Fire Brigade was even called to cut away the brickwork when a burglar was caught in a chimney. It was a special service call. In addition, there were about 250,000 fire calls to be dealt with. That is the record of service in one year of our fire brigades. What I am suggesting is that here there is an emergency organisation, ready to be deployed, to be better organised if one wishes, to be given, if one wants, larger chains of command, and more forms of reinforcement, but here is the organisation.
Let us consider one of the disasters which has been referred to tonight, that at Ronan Point. The first service there was the fire service, with 19 appliances, breakdown lorries and heavy removal equipment. A deputy chief officer was in command with a control unit, with radio communications over the whole of London.
Reference has been made to the work of the Auxiliary Fire Service during the Torrey Canyon disaster, and I am with those who paid tribute to the work of these volunteers. The Chief Officer of the Devon Fire Brigade said in his report:
We should be able to cope with any future emergencies on the scale of 'Torrey Canyon'. Then, the majority of the men brought in were whole-time firemen plus a few retained men. The Auxiliary Fire Service was used only at the beginning of the first 48 hours and then those men would not have been available had it not been an Easter weekend.
I beg the House to consider the sort of emergency service which has been proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We cannot have an emergency service if it operates only at weekends or on Bank Holidays. We need a whole-time, round-the-clock emergency service, and I put it to the House that we have one.
I want to be brief, because I know that others wish to take part in the debate. I want to refer to a most interesting contribution to the debate by Lord Robens. I think that all who have followed this argument since the winding up of the Civil Defence Corps were struck

by the contribution made by Lord Robens to this discussion, when he said after the Aberfan disaster:
First, there must be a single, unchallengeable directorate to control operations. Secondly, it must have the ability to control the movement of men, materials, and messages within the disaster area. Thirdly, it must have the ability to secure relevant expertise without delay.
There is not a fire officer in the country who does not organise his fire-fighting operations on that basis. Every fire brigade in the country has its emergency plan.
I invite hon. Members, when they get back to their constituencies, to imagine, for the purpose of this table-top exercise, a rail crash, an aeroplane crash or a multiple road crash, and to ask the local chief fire officer what his plans are. The plans are there. After the terrible disasters at Lewisham and Hither Green the London Fire Brigade was given overall responsibility for co-ordinating rescue work and other services when rail disasters occur in the London area. My plea is not that we should begin to think of alternative organisations but that the fire service should be adequately reinforced. It should be given the necessary men and equipment.
In July there was a conference in Geneva at which about 40 nations were represented, and where delegates considered the whole question of the organisation of peace-time disaster services. The British fire service came out rather badly in terms of the amount of equipment available to it. I am not complaining about radio communications, or about tackling peace-time nuclear disasters where equipment has been supplied, but much equipment could still be made available to reinforce the fire service.
Mention has been made of soil moving equipment. It is not a fireman's job to use a bulldozer, but as one hon. Member opposite said, someone must have this sort of equipment available, ready on call, and in this sense a great deal can be done to reinforce the work of the fire services on the ground. Instead of wasting money on new and—perhaps I am speaking rather unkindly—fancy schemes, I suggest that adequate money should be made available to strengthen the professional fire service and give it what it needs to provide training facilities, equipment and appliances.
I ask the Minister to consider giving the fire service control of operations, not because a chief fire officer at any one of these disasters has all the comprehensive knowledge and technical expertise available to deal with any aspect of the multifarious disasters that occur in the course of the year but because it is necessary to establish a single chain of command. This was discovered at Lewisham and at Aberfan. In the latter case the Chief Fire Officer of Merthyr Tydvil, who was in charge of operations in the early stages of the disaster, pleaded in his report that a way should be found to provide for the establishment of a single command in order to prevent the wastage of manpower and the cluttering up of roads with vehicles and equipment that had not been requested. The fire service, with the police, can make available their radio communications.
In considering how to strengthen the emergency service the questions of command, liaison and communications should be vested in the one organisation which is readily available without spending a penny more. The fire service has radio communications equipment and the necessary appliances. It has a regional command, and it has reinforcements available on a nation-wide scale. That is the direction in which the thoughts of the House should be turned in considering the problem which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised.
The fire service has never shirked this responsibility. It would be willing to undertake these additional responsibilities. The problem which has been highlighted tonight is real and important. I am glad that the House has discussed these problems. The way out is for us to see how to improve the fire service. This is an emergency service ready to hand.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) spoke with knowledge and experience about the fire service, and we all know the unique service it renders in every emergency. However, some of us might disagree about whether the existing services can meet all kinds of disasters. We must draw a line between the immediate disaster, like a rail disaster, where the problem is of short duration, and the kind of

continuing catastrophe which brings a need for long-term organisation. An example is our problem in the West of Scotland. We had the great hurricane in January, but the problem of repair and rehabilitation is still with us, and has stretched over months. This shows the need for more than just the splendid immediate service done so magnificently by organisations like the fire service.
The Minister objected strongly when one of my hon. Friends said that his speech was complacent, but we can object to his claim that an emergency organisation along the lines outlined by my hon. Friend would be inappropriate. Although it is true that the kind of problems which have been discussed arise perhaps only once in 50 or 100 years in particular areas, the extent of human misery and suffering involved imposes on us a real obligation to provide the kind of organisation which can spring into instant action in such a disaster.
This is the kind of disaster which we had in Glasgow when 120-mile-an-hour winds caused horrifying devastation on the dreadful night of 14th–15th January, with about £20 million to £25 million worth of damage, affecting about 270,000 houses. That was a major disaster and is still with us. Although I was interested in the comments about computers and the rest, this is not the kind of situation which can be sorted out by computers. Glasgow already had a serious housing problem, with its roots in history, and the storm added greatly to this.
The Minister said that the essential services are there and that we can dispense with several of them without removing the obligation, but what about the civil defence organisation? Those Glasgow Members who have visited the storm damage centre know that the Minister of State has been assiduous in keeping in touch with the problem. I wonder what the problem would have been without the enthusiasm, organisation and co-operation of the civil defence organisation? It has been acting as a nerve centre of organisation for Glasgow storm damage and our problem would have been even more serious without it. In these circumstances, I hope that a permanent civil defence element will be a real factor in any organisation which is considered.
What could be provided by a national disaster organisation? One thing is a supply of temporary, mobile homes, because, in most of the disasters, one urgent problem is housing. In major cities, where there is a district housing problem, the local authorities cannot readily respond to the increased demand and such a supply of temporary homes, located throughout the country, could be brought into a disaster area at the time.
Would it not be possible to have an organisation to advise individuals in trouble where they can get help? Most Members of Parliament with surgeries are often surprised at how little knowledge there is of the available services offered by local authorities, boards and councils. Often people do not know what are their rights and which services are available. Could not a temporary organisation be set up immediately to give people legal advice, advice on welfare and on housing and the other general advice which people in trouble need?
The third need is for equipment. A great deal of equipment and many supplies have been brought into the west of Scotland. Will a continuing supply be available at all times? Would not this best be organised by a national disaster organisation?
Fourthly, what about research? It would be interesting if the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has taken such a personal interest in our problems in Glasgow, could indicate which Ministry or organisation is undertaking research into the kind of facilities and materials which can make good damage in disasters. That is very important. We have been greatly assisted in Glasgow by new systems of covering roofs, for example, which have been made available. Will any Department or Ministry be responsible in future for research into the maintenance and repair of homes?
The fifth need is for skilled personnel. The Secretary of State is aware that we have had a few difficulties in the west of Scotland because of shortages of key personnel. For example, in one area there may have been plenty of tradesmen but a shortage of technical staff, such as surveyors or masters of work. From inquiries which I have made, it appears that on occasions work has been delayed

because of a shortage of key technical assistants—in one case of surveyors and in another case of masters of works. This difficulty cannot be overcome overnight, but is it not possible for every major private construction organisation and every local authority to have two or three of its permanent staff on call in such a disaster? This is not a suggestion that every local authority should carry surplus labour. We cannot expect that. On the other hand, if regular conferences were held of individuals who would be available for such temporary secondment to a permanent organisation, it would help.
As my hon. Friends have said, the initial burden in any disaster falls on the police force, and they have a vital part to play. In that situation, is it not essential that both the police service and the fire service be fully manned? Unfortunately, that is not a situation which exists either in Scotland or in England. The greatest contribution which we can make to meeting disasters is to ensure that at all times we have a fully manned police force. The same comment can be made of the ambulance service. Concern was expressed in Scotland at the week-end about the availability of the ambulance service. I have no information about the validity of those fears, but they were expressed by some engaged in ambulance work. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the matter will be reviewed and that any fears which have been expressed will be relieved?
Obviously we cannot hope to plan for every disaster or to ensure that speedy relief always is given, but my hon. Friends have proved the case completely for having a basic organisation which can spring into instant action and bring relief.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the hon. Member give a brief calculation of the cost of his proposals in Civil Service manpower and in cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. Taylor: Of course I cannot give any such calculation. I am saying that in the West of Scotland the existence of the civil defence organisation has provided the basis on which work has been done. We do not wish to criticise the other services, such as the Army, the police and the fire service, but we can


say that in the West of Scotland the existence of a nucleus of people who were accustomed to working together on this kind of problem and to preparing for emergencies has been of immense value, and it would be a tragedy if that organisation were removed and nothing put in its place.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I agreed with the latter remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) but I suggest that we should consider why the nucleus to which he referred now exists. It was only as a result of the disaster in January that that nucleus was built up. Considering how it has been built up, I believe that it should be on an area or regional basis and not, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued, on a national basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) referred to the fire service and he will know that I tried to render some service to that organisation during the war. The N.F.S. was formed because even in the City of London it was found that different boroughs had different coupling methods, which often meant that one fire brigade which wished to go to the assistance of another had to stand helpless and look on. There is such a difference even between Edinburgh and Glasgow. We are at present awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. This may result in large enough units being formed to provide a comprehensive nucleus of services, without our having to resort to a national organisation.
The financial side of the matter is vitally important. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) will recall that in a previous Parliament attempts were made to amend the local government legislation to give local authorities power to make donations to disaster funds. This is not a party point. We appreciated the difficulties which existed at that time and which, I believe, still exist. Nevertheless, it might be worth considering making amendments to the local government legislation to empower local authorities to give money to other local authorities when a disaster occurs in another area. Under present Statutes they are prevented from doing this.
I agree with the remarks that have been made about the need for a pool of labour, particularly when disasters occur. A shortage of the right type of skilled labour has faced us in the City of Glasgow and in the West of Scotland. It has been pointed out in previous debates that, while the Government can provide the finance, resources and materials, building work can proceed only as fast as the availability of skilled men able to lay the bricks and do the other work. I often wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would remember this when debating this subject. We have been desperately short of skilled slaters in Glasgow to repair the damage caused by the disaster.
Although offers of help came from roof workers south of the Border, in Glasgow the buildings are altogether different and men must work 40 to 60 feet up repairing the roofs. In many cases men sent to Scotland to do this work had to be returned. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will wish to join in paying the highest possible tribute to the courage of those men who, 50 to 60 feet above ground level on slippery roof tops, did their best to repair the damage and comfort the unfortunate inhabitants of the houses which were so badly damaged in the disaster.
With reference to a pool of men for this work, I hope that my hon. Friend will have regard to the report on Scotland's older houses and the projected legislation to deal with that situation and will look now to the supply of the skilled men of whom we are talking. There are not many of them. Out of the 1,700 men engaged in restoring the position in Scotland at present only 404 are skilled slaters, and other tradesmen—joiners and the rest—can work only as fast as those slaters can get on with their job. This is the most important problem, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have regard not only to future emergencies but to the normal processes of building in Scotland.
Another important question arising out of a lot of experience concerns finance and the compensation payable. When speaking in an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that tenement buildings in Glasgow and in Scotland generally are the hard core of the problem. It must be remembered that each roof covers at least eight to 12 houses. I pay tribute to the right


hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll who was pictured in the Press at the weekend on the roof of one of these buildings gathering his information at first hand. In that respect he is to be congratulated, in contrast to some of the journalists and other newspaper scribes who are only too anxious to criticise the Government. If those people could lay slates as quickly as they can compile sentences critical of the Government, we might get somewhere.
One tenement roof covers eight to 12 houses, and private ownership of these gaunt, grim buildings is in question. Insurance problems arise, the local authority has to intervene, arguments start, and one can understand why in some instances there has been some impediment to progress. Some 10,000 such tenements have been affected in Glasgow. They are all privately owned. But, as the hon. Member for Cathcart has said, the local authority took the initiative by setting up a special office in Elmbank Street, with special professional and technical staff. The Scottish Development Department made a very good contribution of skilled staff.
The lessons that have been learned may be of great value in the approaching months when we deal with legislation affecting older houses. The information gained by the committee I have mentioned in assessing whether or not some buildings were worth restoring at all, or whether they needed modified repairs, or whether they were worthy of permanent repair will be extremely valuable to us in the months ahead. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, if one of the by-products of the frightful horror and pain which the citizens of Scotland suffered in January is the nucleus of such an organisation, not only for dealing with storm damage or other emergencies but with other civil problems, that suffering will not have been in vain. I take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the local authority and of some of my hon. Friends to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues at the Scottish Office for the services they rendered to the local authority in the recent disaster.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As time is short, I shall not

follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) in the very fair points and searching criticisms he has made of what went on in Glasgow.
I want to confine myself to two points. The first is concerned with warning of impending floods. I do not think sufficient attention has been given to this. We have had at least three serious floods this year—in the West Country, the South-East, York and the Midlands. There have also been local flooding outbreaks. There has not been adequate warning of impending disasters. I think there could have been if the Meteorological Office had warned the public of what was likely to happen. On Saturday, 14th September in my constituency I happened to hear the early morning weather forecast. We were not told by the Meteorological Office that it was expecting four or five inches of rain in the next 48 hours. If the Office had told the public, they could have drawn the conclusion that serious flooding would occur.
When the Minister goes to the conference which has been mentioned, he should bring the Meteorological Office into the discussion and give it the power to warn the public when floods are likely to occur through heavy rainfall. I am surprised that the Meteorological Office did not warn the Government earlier that serious flooding was likely to occur. I read an article in the August issue of the magazine Weather which disclosed that the ice flow in the Arctic had been so heavy last winter that one could walk on solid ice from Iceland to Greenland. That is very exceptional. It should have put the Meteorological Office on notice that something odd could happen to our weather this year. If the Office knew that, it should have warned the Government to look out for exceptional circumstances.
I do not think this is the last flooding that we could get this winter. We are in a very peculiar meteorological period a present. We are not in those pleasant days such as were experienced when I was a boy and when we had warm summers. Since 1960 the quantity of northerly winds has doubled compared with the average in the first 50 years of this century. There are more easterly winds than there used to be and the percentage of westerly winds has fallen


Westerly winds more or less bring warm weather from the Gulf Stream, but now we get more easterly winds. They tend to bring colder and more frosty weather such as we have been having in the 1960s and which we did not have in the first 50 years of the century.
I should like the Met. Office to give further thought to the long-term prospects for the late 1960s and early 1970s, to how long a period with weather of this nature and these exceptional circumstances may last.
In my constituency, and I think in others, there is the remnant of the Civil Defence Corps. Its members are still meeting. Some of them have written to me to ask why they should not be allowed to continue as a voluntary emergency service to be called in to assist the police or the fire service when disaster strikes.
The results of the flooding in the South-East continued for several days—witness what happened near my constituency at Molesey, Thames Ditton and Esher. There was a long period of clearing up far beyond the period which could be coped with by the police, the fire service, and so on. The hon. Member for Wands-worth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) said that it is the after-effects of floods which are so serious, as well as the immediate impact.

Mr. Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that as recently as 20th October in Birmingham there was a national conference of voluntary civil aid societies to which the Government refused to send a representative and that the Government refuse any assistance to these people who are prepared to give their service entirely voluntarily in providing exactly the sort of help that we need?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is absolutely disgraceful. There is a large fund of voluntary effort which could be called on in emergencies. My wife was a member of the Civil Defence Corps until it was wound up. If it still existed, she would be willing to give her services in emergencies. There must be tens of thousands of others who would be willing to do so.
To follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, we want a national emergency fund, one which is in constant being. I would like to see a fund of about £2 million raised

and kept constantly in being. A Private Bill introduced in the House of Lords a few years ago sought to wind up all the old funds, including the old troopship "Birkenhead", dating from 1850, which is still in existence, and bring them all into one central national disaster fund. If that were done, there would be a nucleus for future ues.
I reiterate my three points. First, we want more warning from the Meteorological Office. Secondly, the voluntary emergency service should be allowed to operate under the police or the fire service—I do not mind which. Thirdly, a national disaster fund should be built up to deal with all the emergencies which will occur.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I will not follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) into comparisons between the weather which prevailed in his youth and what it is likely to be in future. As one who was employed by the Meteorological Office for 15 years at one time and another, I hope that we can so improve our one-day forecasting—never mind the forecasts for the coming month or the coming week—that we can achieve a high degree of accuracy.
I will demonstrate my point by stating what occurs in the case of flooding. The Meteorological Office is responsible for issuing weather warnings. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary grasped my point that, although the forecasts may be good and accurate from the point of view of terminology, there is room for improvement in instilling a sense of urgency into listeners that a different situation is imminent.
I agree that more use could be made of flash messages. I believe from inquiries I have made that only one message was put out at the time of the South-East floods by means of radio and television. The plea which has been made for utilising the radio and television network to a much greater extent deserves to be heeded. There should be a pulling up of socks as regards the origination and use of such messages.
The Meterological Office passes the warnings to the river boards. I entirely agree that one inch of rain may cause flooding in one area but not in another. Therefore, there must be an assessment


of the knowledge available at the particular point. However, it should be possible, after the Meteorological Office has passed warnings to the local river boards, for the river boards to come back and say, "We regard this as a serious situation". Thus, when the Meteorological Office broadcasts its warnings, it could say that a period of heavy and continuous rain was expected and that it was advised by a certain river board or several river boards that a serious situation was developing and flooding was imminent.
The Meteorological Office comes under the Ministry of Defence. The river boards come under the Ministry of Agriculture. The warnings go from them to the police, who come under the Home Office. So far, we have three Departments concerned. The police may or may not go round and inform the local people. The Minister of Housing and Local Government comes in to co-ordinate the disaster relief, if or when it happens. That is another Department. Moreover, in response to a Question I put the other day, I was told that the Department of Education and Science is conducting a long-term survey into the effects of flooding—which brings in another Department. All these Ministries have their Departmental responsibilities and the thing needs tying together. I do not mind which Minister does it, but there should be co-ordinated contingency planning.
If the Press or any hon. Members want to look for scapegoats for whether the organisation ran well or badly in the past, they should look to the local authorities and ask which of them subscribed to the Meteorological Office warning system. Many did not. The Meteorological Office will supply a flood warning, a snow warning, a frost warning or a gale warning—it will even give warnings to pigeon fanciers—but someone must take notice of the warning. When I was a meteorologist, I used to issue potato blight warnings. Hon. Members may not realise that, when the temperature exceeds 80 degrees and is over a certain level for 48 hours, conditions become such that the potato harvest may be seriously threatened. We used to issue these warnings because we were asked for them.
On the other hand, it is a different kettle of fish when one tries to pass the

warning on. Very often, there is no one at the other end, or, if there is, he is too sleepy to take it. It is only when one asks for his name so as to record it in the warning book as proof that the message was sent that he wakes up and asks, "What do I do with it?" I had that sort of response many times myself.
There should be an overall plan. The fire service has a great part to play as well. After the warnings have been given, the various authorities concerned should know what information they ought to have, what services should have it, and what ought to be done in response to the information. That is vital.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) spoke of the Meteorological Office being starved of funds. I have said my piece about the accuracy of its forecasts, and I know that the Director-General of the Met. Office, a man for whom I have a high regard, is anxious to do the best he can for his department. I believe that, if we give him a big enough computer, he will forecast every last rain drop which falls anywhere. But I have put down a lot of Questions on this subject already asking what has been the improvement in forecasting with the computer which the Director-General already has. So far, I have not received an answer.
Before my hon. Friend starts lashing out money on bigger computers, I want to see a justification from the Director-General of the Met. Office showing how forecasts have improved with the big computer which he already has. When he says that 80 per cent. of short-term forecasts are correct, this must depend upon the criteria applied. While I have been sitting here I have written out a forecast "It will be cloudy with occasional sunny periods, with moderate to strong winds in exposed places. Winds will be light to calm in sheltered areas. Periods of rain, heavy at times, may be associated with the cloudier periods. Temperatures will be around normal for this time of year." I assure hon. Members that that forecast covers every possible contingency. I have had some experience, and I would get full marks for that.
I say to the Director-General of the Met. Office, in all fairness, that I have studied his criteria of how he assesses the accuracy of his forecasts, and it is a very unscientific document which he should go


over before he makes these extravagant claims. I would say that our Met. Office is as good as any in the world, bearing in mind our weather conditions.
I agree with my hon. Friend in the main analysis he has made of our overall facilities, but we ought to address ourselves to the problem of tying in the existing services so that exact duties are laid down for every Government Department and every department lower down. The local authorities ought to look to their laurels to make sure that their organisations are functioning at 100 per cent. efficiency, since I think that they are capable of considerable improvement.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: We have had a short but extremely interesting debate on the problem of disasters, and it is natural enough that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken particularly about the disaster which has most recently occurred in their own area, whether it was floods in the South-West or in the London area. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) seemed to think that a rainfall of 5 inches was remarkable, but in Inverness we had a rainfall of 9·25 inches a year or two ago, which I think is the record for the British Isles. Not that we want to claim records about that sort of weather.
We have covered many types of disaster, and it is inevitable that different problems should be inherent in dealing with each type. While I share with the Under-Secretary of State the privilege of having been in the Air Force during the war, I was concerned with bombs and the effect of bombs, and probably saw a good deal more of national disasters of that sort than most hon. Members. I agree with him that no two emergencies are alike, but I cannot agree with him that therefore the Government should have no fixed plans. If different sorts of disaster occur, which is inevitable in the wide sphere we are considering, a particular fixed plan will make nonsense. What are needed are plans in general and, above all, people who are trained to deal with a wide variety of emergencies and who are able to take command when the moment comes.
There are two types of emergency which have hardly been touched on during our debate and which I would

like to mention, so that the House will be able to think about them, since I am certain that this will not be the last debate on this subject. We have been lucky recently in that we have had no major strikes, which can cause considerable troubles—disaster, if you like. A shipping strike on the West Coast of Scotland created most difficult conditions over a wide area. We have also been extremely fortunate in not having the experience which so many other countries have had of large-scale riots. Riots can create quite different conditions from those we have been discussing, but are a serious part of the problem.
I will briefly try to distinguish the type of problems that emerge according to the stage of the disaster. All disasters of the sort that we are considering have two phases. The first, or the immediate phase, is what one might call the first-aid stage. I agree with many hon. Members, on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and many others, who said that in this stage the key is communications. Unless one knows immediately what has happened and where, and as clearly as possible the size of the disaster, no further action can sensibly be taken.
I remember very well—it has happened in some of the disasters which we have been discussing—that one of the first things to happen is that telephone communications go out altogether. Therefore, it is vital to have short-wave wireless systems. I do not mind whether they are Territorial, Army, civil defence or whatever they may be. The police short-wave wireless system is already enormously overburdened and if we were to rely simply on that, we would be making a mistake.
As soon as one has the information, the next immediate priorities arise. I do not want to start any inter-service quarrels with the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), but I put the police at the head of the list and the fire brigades second. This may be because during a lot of that sort of operation during the war, our experience was that the police had the training, the equipment and the power of command in, perhaps, slightly greater measure than did the fire brigades at the time, and I regard them as the top. After that, one


needs rescue squads, ambulances, hospital services, and so on. I stress, however, that there must be somebody in charge, and somebody in charge immediately, to whom the others automatically give respect and from whom they accept orders, otherwise chaos will result.
Immediately after the first-aid period, one gets a quite different problem, which will be entirely different according to the nature of the disaster. Floods may take 24 or 36 hours or a week to subside. A bad aircraft smash, like the one at Stockport, may take 24 hours to clear up, and the same with railway trouble. When, however, one gets something like hurricane "Low Q", which seriously hit the West of Scotland and not simply Glasgow, we have a problem on our hands which, as we now know, is certainly well over a year in duration. This needs a different type of organisation and a different type of long haul from some of the other disasters.
It may be useful for a few minutes to consider what happens in those longer periods of disaster and where a national organisation of some sort might fit in. After the first six or 12 months—or, it may be, 24 hours in certain cases—when one has a major problem on one's hands which must be put right, I would say that the first essential priority is unified control. Here I disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who opened the debate for the Government.
It may be that we in Scotland are fortunate. We happen to have a system by which the Secretary of State is Minister for home affairs, in charge of local government, in charge of agriculture and effectively in charge of the meteorological office. He has an enormous width of responsibility and, therefore, he can, and should, take control himself or one of his Ministers. There is no argument about it.
In England, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) said, there is a multiplicity of Ministers. I did not quite understand what the Under-Secretary of State was trying to tell us. He said that he was against having unified control; he was against any of the Ministries giving up their Departmental responsibilities. As I understood him,

he was saying that in the ultimate resort the Home Office was in charge.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated assent.

Mr. Noble: To my mind that is not enough, because it is not the ultimate resort that I am interested in. It is the man on the spot dealing with the problem for the first week or fortnight, or month or six months, according to the nature of the problem. I believe that this has got to be a single Minister. I do not mind to whom he is responsible as long as he is trained and has under him an adequate staff who are trained. After all, during the war we found it essential to set up a regional commissioner who had immediate authority, irrespective of the defence Services or anybody else, to deal with this sort of problem. That is the model we ought to follow, though, I hope, with nothing approaching the same size of staff.
The second priority seems to me to be the absolute need for accurate information of what has, in fact, happened. In a storm of the nature of hurricane "Low Q" it takes time fully to collect. In my own area we were cut off by road and by telephone for about a week. Information quickly gathered is not likely to be very accurate. In this case the Secretary of State himself had to tell the House—I think it was in April—that he had been totally misled by the information which he had been given from the people in charge of the problem. Equally, Glasgow Corporation itself was totally misled as to the nature of the problem, and three months after the gale hardly anybody had any idea what really was the problem to be solved. I have been in Glasgow, and I have been to the various places affected, in the last two or three weeks; there is still an enormous lack of knowledge of the problem 10 months after the storm took place.
It makes me have great sympathy with the Secretary of State when he has been absolutely refusing to give targets of when certain things would be done. Of course, one cannot give a target when one does not know what the basic problem is, for then one cannot conceivably have an idea of when the job will be finished. It is true that the Storm Damage Control Centre, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, has done a wonderful job of


work, but it was not set up until June—perhaps the end of May; but it did not start work until June. I was told that when I was there. If I am wrong I shall be delighted to be corrected by the Secretary of State, but it was very late before it got started and very late before it was able to give the necessary information to the people who were handling the repairs.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will permit me another minor point—the Section 11 houses. He will know what I mean by this. He told us, in the debate in February, that he had powers to deal with these. There was no use of those powers until June. The Minister is shaking his head, but this is what the Lord Provost and the people there told me when I was there. If it is inaccurate information I shall certainly withdraw that remark, but I can only tell the House what I was told by the people responsible for dealing with the operation.
Then the third priority, or the long haul, is getting the necessary personnel there. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) talked about the shortage of slaters. This was one of the main factors which got all the sums wrong in the early days, because information was made available to the Glasgow people of the number of slaters who were available. They were not. They did not exist.
But this is not the whole of the problem, because it became immediately clear, and was still clear last week when I was on those roofs, that there is a vast amount of work to be done, and it cannot be done with slates. What is more, it is a great waste of time if people are to remove slates, as they are doing, and try to cover the roofs with felt and tar. It is a waste of time because there is a perfectly good plastique which has been available a long time—for many years—and is now being used in Glasgow. It is perfectly effective; it is quicker and cheaper as it involves putting special material on top of the slates. One needs to know what resources one has by way of labour, by way of materials or methods avoiding the use of scarce materials. One has to get cracking with it.
The point I would specially like to make tonight is that whatever criticism there may be—and inevitably there will be some, because by the very nature of things, a national disaster is something

of which people have not had much experience—it will depend on the quality and calibre of the people in charge of operations whether mistakes are made. The essential thing is that at the end of the day, when the immediate work is finished, a full and independent inquiry should look at the whole of the operation of the disaster work, and come to its own conclusions as to what was right or wrong. This is not to criticise Ministers or town clerks, or anyone else, but to assess accurately what went wrong and to record it for future use in five or 10 years, or perhaps six months' time. This is very much worth doing, and I hope that the Government will agree that this sort of inquiry should take place after the major problems of Hurricane "Low Q", through the whole of the West Coast of Scotland.
Here are one or two questions with which the inquiry should deal. First, it ought to study why it took so long to discover the nature of the problem of the housing in Glasgow. It was certainly three months before the full nature of the problem was known. I do not say that one local authority was better than another; it may have been luck—I do not know—but the Burgh of Clydebank was about the worst hit of any judged by the number of houses damaged. Yet it had all of its repairs completed by the summer, while Greenock, which was about the same, or perhaps not so badly damaged, has not yet finished, and is nowhere near finished its work. There may be perfectly good reasons for this.
I do not know whether it is right that the Clydebank burgh got two big contractors and said "Go right through the whole town and clear up all the roofs. Do not bother about who they belong to; just get the thing done." If this is so, it was very effective in providing its Citizens with roof cover very quickly. In doing so the burgh might have infringed some regulation about finance. If it has, I beg Ministers to forget about that petty affair. If one does not encourage local authorities which show initiative and get on with the job, even if they spend a bit too much, the next time we will be in trouble.
The next problem that ought to be studied is how much information is available about alternative methods of dealing with these slated roofs? The system which is known as plastique was invented


many years ago, and used for a considerable time. But it is only now, eight or nine months after the storm, that this technique is beginning to be used in the City to any reasonable extent. It is much quicker and cheaper, and if it had been used we would not have large numbers of houses still to be repaired.
I have spoken mainly about the damage in Glasgow, and the roofs. But, as many hon. Members have said, there were serious disaster problems in different areas to agriculture, farming, forestry and to many other things. This may well be a subject to which the House should come back on another occasion. But in this short debate I believe that we have made a good case for some form of organisation—we are not rigid in our planning—and particularly for some set-up which will train the necessary people to take charge of these emergencies wherever and whenever they occur.

9.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Mr. Speaker, I will hurry as much as possible through quite a number of the important points which have been raised.
We started with a general proposition concerning the establishment of a national emergencies organisation. But inevitably—and I think understandably—we got to examining particular problems of particular disasters that affected certain local authorities.
I would make three very quick answers to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). Why did he take so long to assess the problem? We did not take any length of time to assess the problem. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the original estimate of 10,000 roofs to be repaired in the private sector was made in March, and that has never seriously been challenged. The real difficulty has been to get the people to do it, because we knew at the start that it required specialists. This is after the emergency was over. The right hon. Member for Argyll stood here in the House and congratulated us on the way we handled the emergency. The right hon. Gentleman has gone on from the emergency to something else.
The difference concerning Greenock, Clydebank and Glasgow is the incidence

and nature of the problem. Anyone who knows the Glasgow tenements knows that one thing to be taken into account is the state of repair, which is probably worse than anywhere else.
Concerning techniques for repair, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) asked who was looking into this. The Building Research Organisation is looking into it. The right hon. Member for Argyll suggested that there was a Plastique method which had been known for a very long time. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the houses that we are repairing do not belong to the Government or the local authorities; they belong to factors. One difficulty has been to convince the factors to accept this as a valid semi-permanent repair. If the right hon. Gentleman appreciated some of the complexity we have had in dealing with his friends in Glasgow, the property owners, on the information they had to give us, he would be just a little less assured about coming along, whether he likes it or not, to criticise Ministers.
No two disasters are alike. It is suggested that there should be a flexible organisation, but we must appreciate what it will cost to train people for a permanent job and to set up a new organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked the hon. Member for Cathcart whether he had priced his proposal, to which the hon. Gentleman replied "No". That is true. We must appreciate that one of the main reasons for abolishing the Civil Defence Corps, which I admit was useful in this sphere, was the question of finance and the national economy. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to come along and say that we should resurrect it in another form to do a limited job which might not be done as well as it could otherwise be done.
Those who suggest that we should have this National Emergencies Organisation should appreciate that we may well, by this, run the serious risk of undermining the practical responsibility of the local authorities on the spot. I think that the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) put his finger on the problem. At the beginning of these disasters there must be an immediate local response.
We should appreciate that the greatest disasters in Britain over the last century have occurred in the mining industry. This industry, because of the almost predictable nature of accidents in the pits, has its schemes ready. There is never any delay in carrying out salvage operations, in helping to save lives, in providing medical services, and so on. AH the services are there, and they run smoothly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) said that every fire, large or small, was an emergency, and that there was an immediate response to it, but of course the matter does not end there. As hon. Members who study this problem know, there have been plenty of reports on this subject. There is the first call, and then there is the follow up. There is the ability to get people in from outside to help in an emergency. There is already a regional structure.
What people have in mind when they talk about emergencies is where more than one service is involved, and where there has to be a certain measure of liaison and an assurance of co-ordination. We learn something from every disaster. We improve our organisation. We improve our techniques, but I think we must appreciate that the body on the spot with the widest coverage of responsibility, be it for welfare, or housing, or roads, or the police, or anything else, is the local authority. The local authority and the police are there right from the beginning. This is the set-up which exists now.
The disaster in Scotland was not only a Glasgow disaster, nor only an urban one. It affected agriculture and forestry, too, and the existing system worked, and worked well. It means, of course, that Ministers have to accept responsibility. I admit that this is easy in Scotland. One thing which we have established tonight is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for the Meteorological Office, but I say to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) that if I were responsible for the Meteorological Office I should object to him blaming civil servants, and ask him to blame me for any failures. There has to be this backing from Ministers. As I say, this is relatively easy when it comes to the duties of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Reference has been made to the agriculture industry. It was agriculture which suffered one of the biggest disasters to afflict Britain this year. There were, of course, compensations following the ready response of the Minister of Agriculture to the appeals for help, but even in Scotland I have no power to do anything. This matter has been centralised in the hands of one Minister, and that is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He is responsible for dealing with outbreaks of animal diseases, even in Scotland, and it is right that this should be so.
When it came to a question of dealing with flood damage, responsibility naturally fell on the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with his direct connection with local auhtorities, and this arrangement has worked well. On a very much larger scale, where the damage is far more wide-reaching and less localised, and less confined to one Department, of course the Home Secretary is there.
After an emergency there is inevitably a certain amount of inquiry into whether things could have been done better. I think that it is healthy and right that there should be such an inquiry. One hon. Gentleman opposite said that communications were vital during an emergency, and I agree. One cannot get anything done in the right place, and to the right extent, and one cannot establish priorities, without having the person in charge backed from the centre, and with all the information flowing both ways.
This is where we have the advantage in relation to the fire services and the police. In Scotland we found it of considerable advantage to move in the equipment from our own stores, and indeed to use our own staff. I assure the hon. Member for Cathcart that if we were required to do the same thing again tomorrow, even though the Civil Defence Corps has gone, we could do so. We established headquarters there and we were able, through the welfare services to provide halls and so on.
Local authorities have shown that they can create this organisation. They can handle the voluntary help that comes in. One hon. Member who intervened seemed to think that we were discarding the possibility of using voluntary organisations. They are an essential part of the


backing-up organisation of local authorities. Another hon. Member referred to the women's transport service. I think that it is part of the Women's Voluntary Service. Perhaps we could examine the question whether they could be taught to use radio equipment. We have to learn the right use of communications and make the right provision for them.
I am satisfied about the chain of command, and I now turn to the question of warning. This is the most difficult thing in the world. We had a tremendous storm in Glasgow, in the middle of the night. Thank goodness it was in the middle of the night. If people had been on the streets many hundreds would have been killed. But what can we do about such disasters? The most unlikely buildings were affected. If we had given a warning people may well have left their homes and been in even more danger.
The one thing that has been emphasised by the debate is that there should be a conference of all the people involved, including the Meteorological Office, the Ministry of Agriculture and the river authorities, and such a conference will take place. An assessment of the danger of floods cannot be made by the Meteorological Office. The only people who can do it are the river authorities. In this respect England and Wales are more fortunate than Scotland, because Scotland has no river authorities. Only sketchy provision is made for flood prevention. Someone is responsible for that aspect of the problem, however, and that must continue. I know from what happened in Ross and Cromarty that warning is vital. Once decisions are made measures must be put into operation and people must know how they should work and where responsibility lies at every point.
The question was raised of sappers stationed in Scotland. There are some. In September I visited some who were doing a very useful piece of building in Argyllshire in the right hon. Member's own constituency. They have moved from there since but I believe that some are still stationed in other parts of Scotland. But this is not the point. If a situation arises that requires the assistance of the Army, Navy or Air Force, there is no hesitation, wherever they may be stationed. We got specialist people from

Ripon into Scotland, and the Royal Air Force flew in tarpaulins. We know where all the required materials are, and on this occasion they were flown in. The last thing that anybody spoke about at that time was money. They thought in terms of getting the job done, and we are very grateful for the dangerous work that was carried out by the Armed Services and the other services.
The shortage of slaters was a vital issue. This is why we had to try to extend the number of those who could be drawn from other trades for a particular roofing job in Glasgow. A considerable number of people have lost their lives working on these roofs and we should be aware of the extent of the progress which has been made. A total of 169,000 local authority houses were damaged in Scotland, excluding Glasgow, and all except for a few hundred have been repaired. In the whole of Scotland, 187,000 local authority houses were damaged and 179,000 have been repaired. That is pretty good. As for private houses, 84,000 were damaged and 77,000 have been repaired.
We had hoped to build up a labour force of just over 1,000 and we now have a force of 1,700, 500 from the Scottish Special Housing Association. This, of course, will have some effect on our house building, perhaps not this year, but next year. I hope that people will understand that we have spared no effort in manpower. We are grateful to the Department of Employment and Productivity for the help that they have given us, and to the Army and to those institutions in Scotland which have helped.
From the information which I receive from the Corporation and the owners of property in Glasgow, in recent periods of heavy rain, the number of complaints about these houses has not been more than in a normal year. The Lord Provost of Glasgow is right to say that, as a result of our efforts, the roofs in Glasgow are probably better than they have been for a long time. But we are not satisfied. We must go on to give the maximum protection to everyone.
It did not take us long to set up an advice centre. We used the old civil defence headquarters very early on, and it has since grown and is more sophisticated. The people of Glasgow now have


a place where they can complain about the state of their roofs. They might have been able to telephone a factor before, but they now have a better chance of getting something done.
I admit that there has been a shortage of technical men, but we have solved this by using people from our own technical departments and we have been able to draw on the S.S.H.A. as well. Generally speaking, we have had co-operation from private firms as well where questions of life or property have been involved.
I have explained our concern about the continuing problems. It is too easy a solution to talk about a national organisation, without understanding what is behind it and whether it is better than what we have. There may be men who are anxious to continue the kind of job that they were doing in the Civil Defence Corps, but they will be able to do it by strengthening existing voluntary organisations. This is one way in which they can serve.
I wanted to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) about a national disaster fund. This is an old one which has been brought forward time and again by different Oppositions and Government back-benchers. Every Government has so far turned it down. It has fatal weaknesses. I sincerely hope that, having heard the Government's response, the Opposition will not press the Motion to a Division.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (SUSPENDED SITTINGS)

10.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That,—

(1) A Motion may be made after Ten of the clock by a Minister of the Crown, That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended, and the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate; and if the question be agreed to in the House, a Motion may immediately thereafter be made, That this House do now adjourn, and at the conclusion of the debate on that Motion and in no case later than half an hour after the Motion has been made, the Motion shall lapse and Mr. Speaker shall suspend the Sitting till Ten of the clock on the following morning, or, if it be after midnight, till Ten of the clock in the morning of the same day;
(2) if the question on a Motion, made likewise in a Committee of the whole House, That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended, be so decided in the affirmative, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and make a report to that effect, whereupon Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended, and the House shall proceed thereon in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Order, and, if the question be agreed to, a Motion for the adjournment of the House may be made and the Sitting shall afterwards be suspended as aforesaid; but, if that question be negatived, the House shall immediately again resolve itself into the Committee;
(3) on the resumption of the Sitting the House shall forthwith resume the suspended proceedings and may afterwards proceed with the remaining business of the Sitting which has been suspended:

Provided that—

(a) on a Motion being made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker shall put the question thereon forthwith; or
(b) on the conclusion of the business Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question; or
(c) if the business has not been concluded before Two of the clock, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at that hour and the debate or further consideration of the bill shall stand adjourned, or, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and Mr. Speaker shall thereafter adjourn the House without putting any question.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that I intend to speak briefly and concisely to the Motion and that, if possible, at the end of the de

bate my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader will reply to questions.
The purpose of the Motion is to continue and to convert into a Standing Order an experiment which we had last Session whereby it was possible for a sitting which might otherwise have continued very late at night to be suspended to the following morning. When the experiment was introduced at this time last year, a number of fears were expressed. Some of those fears were legitimate, though at times the language used was so extravagant that I imagine that those hon. Members concerned did not believe in their own exaggerated fears. Our experience of this procedure has helped to still those fears, as I think it is generally agreed to have been a success.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate against the background of conversation.

Mr. Peart: I always assume the hon. Members listen to me, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful for your intervention.
Many of the fears rested on the fact that this procedure could be abused. I recognise that it could be abused, as indeed could any procedure of the House, but it has not been abused. That is due to the good sense of both sides of the House. In the first place, there were forebodings that the Opposition could so abuse the procedure as to frustrate business being done. They have not done so. I believe that they have had the good sense to realise that if they did so it would not be the Government but Parliament which would be brought into disrepute.
I claim, moreover, that the Government equally have shown good sense. They have not used this procedure—if I may use the term—wantonly and ill-advisedly but with regard to the interests of all sides of the House. I intend to continue to operate it in that spirit.
Last Session the Order was invoked six times only, and four of these occasions fell within a period of about 10 days when the House was under particular pressure. On those six occasions the use of the simple procedure enabled the House to avoid particularly late sittings and enabled its business to be completed at what most of us would consider a more businesslike and civilised time.
We have also to consider the staff. We have to consider not only our own position as Members but that of all those loyal servants of the House who help us to work efficiently and sensibly. The point of view of the staff is important. We have to consider the servants of the House and many others. We also have to remember that this matter is of interest not only to us who understand the need sometimes for all night sittings but also to people outside the House where that need is rarely understood. When our Parliamentary system is in question it is important that we should not increase unnecessarily the opportunities for misunderstanding. My personal view, as Leader of the House, is that as far as possible we should avoid sittings into the middle of the night and suspended sittings, too. Equally, however, I recognise that these are sometimes unavoidable if justice is to be done to the interests of hon. Members.
Some people nowadays sneer at ideals. I do not fall into that category. One of my ideals is to see virile Parliamentary democracy. For this we must do our work efficiently. I believe that the Motion contributes to that efficiency, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House made a reasonable speech, but he did not convince me and I doubt whether he convinced any of my hon. Friends. We opposed the Order when it was put forward as a Sessional Order. I will not reiterate the arguments then adduced, but I believe that we were right in our prognostications. The Order had all the demerits of a face-saving expedient after the massive flop of the Monday and Wednesday mornings sittings idea of the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). We said that the Order would not deter reasonable or unreasonable loquacity late at night, would not save the Government time and would cause grave inconvenience to a lot of people. I believe that we were right.
Let us look at the facts of the six occasions when the Order was invoked: at 1.5 a.m. on 27th February on the Public Expenditure and Receipts Bill, at 11.9 p.m. on 20th May on the Town and Country Planning Bill and the third,

fourth and fifth occasions were on the Transport Bill in the early hours of 28th, 29th and 30th May, at 12.25 a.m., 12.50 a.m. and 1.32 a.m. respectively. The sixth occasion occurred at 2.35 a.m. on 24th July on the White Fish and Herring Subsidies Order.
On the argument that time was saved for the Government, what are the facts? On the first occasion it took three hours the next morning for the Government to get the Bill. On the second occasion it took three hours the next morning and, as for the argument that the use of the Order avoids late sittings, particularly at a busy time of the Session, it took from 11.10 p.m. to 6.40 a.m. two days later for the Government to get the Bill. On the sixth occasion it took 2 hours 35 minutes the next morning for the Government to complete the business in hand. In each case it took considerably longer to complete the work than it would have taken had the House gone on sitting at night. I therefore do not believe that it has saved time for the Government.
My second and more important argument is that I believe that it is an abuse of Parliament because hon. Members were not able to do their work properly either on other Committees or on the Floor of the House, and this was particularly the case when the Order was used for the third, fourth and fifth times on the Transport Bill. During the mornings to which the sittings were suspended, the Prices and Incomes Bill was in Standing Committee, as was the Race Relations Bill, and there was a Scottish Measure, the Social Work (Scotland) Bill (Lords) in Committee as well. There were no doubt other Committees going on in the House. The procedure was used to force through a guillotined Bill without all hon. Members being able to use even their restricted rights, and that was wrong.
The third argument, used very much by the right hon. Gentleman the former Leader of the House, was that the Order would be a deterrent. I just do not believe it for a moment. It was an example of the right hon. Gentleman's bad psychology. The House does not like to be threatened. I do not believe that it is a deterrent, and if it ever is regarded as a deterrent I do not think that it will be effective.
The fourth argument is very substantial, and it is that of inconvenience. A Standing Order of this nature, with no certainty as to when it will be used, causes the maximum inconvenience when it is used. The times at which it was invoked speak for themselves: 1.5 a.m.; 11.9 p.m.; 12.25 a.m.; 12.5 a.m.; 1.32 a.m. and 2.35 a.m. They speak for themselves.
This Order affects a great many people. First, it affects Ministers who have to run Departments and have arranged appointments or meetings. Perhaps I have not so much sympathy with them now as with former Governments. Secondly, it affects Members of Parliament, who want to speak or to move Amendments, or who have to be here to vote, or who have arranged meetings and other appointments. Then there are those who are sometimes forgotten, who have made arrangements to meet Ministers or Members—people who may have made special journeys for that purpose.
There is the great difficulty of the Press in giving a continuing picture of a debate, and they also face very great staffing problems.
Again, there are the doorkeepers—very loyal and hard working servants of the House, told without notice, for example, at 2.35 a.m. on 24th July that they must be on duty again at 10 o'clock the next morning. The police, who help hon. Members so much and so efficiently, are in the same difficulty.
There are the hard pressed officials of the House. There are the Official Reporters. If this sort of action is taken and the next day is a normal Committee morning, it means that up to 12 extra staff have to be procured literally in the middle of the night in order to conduct the official reporting of proceedings in Committees and the House. Finally, there are parties hoping to visit the House and to see this Chamber.
This is a very long list. It is an accumulation of inconvenience which is very formidable indeed, far outweighing the convenience of a few hon. Members who would rather go to bed somewhat earlier. And one must always remember that late sittings are usually the fault of Ministers who have been unreasonable with the House, or of those in charge of

Government business who have overloaded the daily programme. I think that it is a scandal that the Government should contemplate even the possibility of inflicting all this trouble and disturbance on so many who work here. And, to add insult to injury, this is to be not just a Sessional Order, but a Standing Order of the House.
I am told that the Government have a three-line Whip tonight. I am not sure of that, I may be wrong, but it would be very odd if they had a three-line Whip on a Motion like this. Whether or not there is a three-line Whip, I hope that sufficient hon. and right hon. Members opposite who care for this House and its reputation will join with us in throwing out the Order.

10.7 a.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) with his habitual kindness of heart described the speech of the Leader of the House as reasonable. I myself would describe it as pitifully inadequate to justify what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who has been here a good many years, appreciates that to make a major change of this kind in the procedure of the House, affecting all hon. Members and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, the staff, simply by using a Government majority to push it through on a three-line Whip, without any degree of agreement, is a Parliamentary outrage. The right hon. Gentleman would have shown a little more respect for the House if he had appreciated this, and had tried to anticipate the many criticisms which will be forthcoming from my hon. Friends by at least putting up some case for a proposal of this sort. This he has manifestly failed to do.
The right hon. Gentleman deplored late sittings, but he knows better than any of us that the main causes of late sittings are either the incompetence or inflexibility of the Minister in charge of a Measure, or the action of the Government in overloading the Parliamentary programme. He knows perfectly well that the reaction to either of these from an Opposition is to keep the debate going. He knows that the main and best method


of avoiding late sittings is not to overload the programme and for Ministers to show a certain willingness to meet the wishes of the House and a certain flexibility in debate. The right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, ought to know this.
The outrage is made the worse when it is perpetrated on Parliament by a Government who have, and know they have, completely lost the backing of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know perfectly well that they have lost the support of the country. They know that they dare not face a General Election in which their numbers would be obliterated. [Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair needs no help. We are getting wide of the Order at the moment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course, but in my respectful submission it is in order to suggest that a measure affecting the rights of Parliament which might be just acceptable from a Government who have the support of the country is absolutely intolerable from a Government who have lost it. But in deference to your Ruling, I will pass on.
The right hon. Gentleman has been long enough in this House to know that this proposal accentuates one of the main difficulties of Parliamentary life. He knows that hon. Members on both sides of the House suffer from the fact that in the ordinary way we know the business of the House only for a few days ahead. Therefore, all of us from time to time are forced by that business to cancel engagements which we have made, sometimes, many months before. So far as I know, there is no means of avoiding that. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes by this Standing Order makes the position very much worse.
It means that any time after 10 o'clock at night if a Minister indulges in a fit of petulance he can cause all hon. Members who in good faith have made arrangements for activities only a few hours ahead, for the next morning—or, if this happens at midnight, the same morning—to cancel those engagements, not only to the inconvenience of the hon. Members

concerned but to people outside. There are engagements which hon. Members have in their constituencies to see and interview people. All these may have to be put off at a time when it is too late to notify the people concerned, simply because the Minister invokes this procedure in the middle of the night.
My right hon. and learned Friend described the adverse effect on the staff of the House who may leave early in the evening, their duties being over, expecting not to be back in uniform until half-past two of the afternoon on the following day and find they are suddenly warned in the middle of the night that they have to parade before 10 o'clock next morning. There is also your position, Mr. Speaker. Most of us realise the immense amount of work which falls on the occupant of the Chair, work outside and administrative decisions which fall to you, Sir. It is clear to all of us that you have important duties and appointments in the morning, all of which, I suppose, have to be sacrificed because some Minister fails to get his business through later tonight.
Some hon. Members take some care to allow themselves to be available for Standing Committees and to make sure that that work does not clash with their Parliamentary duties and with Measures with which they are concerned. All that goes for nothing if a Measure which has taken one afternoon and evening goes on the next morning and clashes with a Standing Committee on which they are serving next morning. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members may think this amusing, but some of us take our duties in respect of these Measures and attendance in Standing Committees seriously. It is outrageous that such carefully considered plans should be liable to disruption by action of this sort taken in the middle of the night.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have inherited this measure from his predecessor and should have made it worse by seeking to make it a Standing Order. Some of us at one time doubted whether we could have a worse Leader of the House than the present Secretary of State for Social Services. We have learned tonight from the right hon. Gentleman that we were wrong. It is perhaps not without significance that the Army once evolved a PIAT gun but


had to abandon it because it was more dangerous to its friends than to its enemies.

10.16 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I shall keep nobody out of bed tonight. What I have to say will take no more than about two minutes to say. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) rather than with the view expressed by the Leader of the House. I agree with what the Leader of the House said about the importance of making the House appear in the eyes of the general public to be dignified and sensible in the way in which it conducts its business, but we should not be asked to do this merely by tinkering with one individual aspect of Parliamentary procedure. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would be willing to co-operate in an experiment of this kind if we were to get something in return.
I belong to a small opposition party. It may well be that it will remain an opposition party for some time. It is true that the right to keep the Government out of bed at night and, indeed, to make life almost intolerable for an individual Minister is one of the few rights that an Opposition Member possesses. It is possible that hon. Members opposite will find themselves in opposition at some time. [Interruption.] I express no hope. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has undertaken to speak for two minutes. Noise will prolong the speech.

Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful, Sir. I make no predictions and express no hopes. I merely say that the time may arrive when hon. Members opposite will be glad that they still have the opportunity of keeping Government Front Bench members up at night. It is one of the few powers that they have.
A week in which the Government have come forward with proposals to truncate and amputate a Specialist Committee—that on agriculture—is not a time at which they should ask the Opposition parties to forfeit certain of their other rights. The right hon. and learned Mem

ber for Wirral and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) both expressed astonishment that there should be a three-line Whip. I see no cause for great surprise. There were three-line Whips on decimal currency and British Standard Time. It is not surprising that we should have a three-line Whip in this matter.
Earlier today—I assure you, Sir, that this is relevant to my argument—I listened to a debate on a Prayer to annul an Order concerning town and country planning. The Minister who replied to the debate failed to answer any of the points; he merely read his brief.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot continue a debate that is over.

Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful, Sir. The right to keep the Government up at night is one of the few weapons that an Opposition have to extract proper answers to their questions. I believe that I am free to pledge my party's support for comprehensive reforms of the procedures of the House, but I cannot pledge its support for a piecemeal reform which merely gives up one of the powers of opposition and gets nothing in return.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I shall take not more than two minutes. It has been suggested by hon. Members opposite that it is extremely inconvenient for members of the staff and for Members of Parliament to be told at 10 or 11 o'clock at night that they have to be back here at 10 o'clock in the morning. That is true. But it is equally a valid argument to point out that for those hon. Members who may have travelled overnight in order to be here it is extremely inconvenient and unhealthy, to say the least, to be told at 10 or 11 o'clock at night that they will not go to bed that night at all.
It has been said that the cause of all the late-night sittings is the incompetence and inefficiency of the Government. That is not true. There have been all-night sittings whenever an Opposition have been annoyed and dissatisfied politically with a piece of legislation which the Government sought to introduce. That is all right. But then the argument runs that the Motion would deprive the Opposition of a great weapon in their hands.


There are many ways of embarrassing a Government politically. If hon. Members opposite think that it does any great good in changing legislation, or that it does anything for the reputation of Parliament, in the eyes of the nation, to use such a weapon consistently, they are out of touch with their constituents.
This is an odd debate, particularly in the light of what people outside think about us. My constituents, when they hear about our staying up night after night without sleep, think that we are "crackers", and they are not far from wrong. We are tonight debating whether we should stop work at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, or midnight and resume at a sensible time in the morning. The Opposition think that to do that, which is what everyone else in the nation does in their lives, would be some sort of criminal waste of public time and an offence against democracy. It only shows how little they know about public opinion.

10.27 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) does not even understand the Motion. The Opposition's argument is not about whether Parliament should rise at a certain time. Under the proposed Order, it could rise unexpectedly at the whim of the Minister. The hon. Gentleman spoke of hon. Members arriving by train and being here the night before. That raises one of our arguments against the Motion. When the Whips try to get a House for the following morning, the people who are here at midnight, one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning will be the ones whipped to be here at 10 o'clock to continue the debate, not the other Members because it would not be possible to get in touch with them.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Social Services knows, this was one of my criticisms when he brought in the original Sessional Order. His successor as Leader of the House worried me intensely tonight because, until now, I had thought that he tried to work the procedure of the House in co-operation with hon. Members, yet he is now bringing in a Motion, which was unpopular when it was first brought in and would not be carried on a free vote, and, not only that, he now intends to make it a Standing Order of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for

Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, it is an outrage.
Let us consider for a moment some of the hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. The idea seems to be that the proposed Standing Order would hit only the Opposition, and principally Opposition backbenchers. I ask the House to cast its mind back to the debate we had on judges' remuneration. That debate was very unpopular with the Front Bench, but many hon. Members opposite below the Gangway kept it going until 6 o'clock in the morning. They would not have been here making the same speeches the following morning at 10 a.m. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Let us see. If the Minister of the day had called a Closure at 1 o'clock in the morning, that would have been the end of the debate. In my view, the pressure put on the Government that night was the sort of pressure which backbenchers ought to put on the Government when they are spending money.
During last Session just as many sittings of the House were caused by the Government opposition on their own benches, if I may use that word to describe them, as were caused by the Opposition on this side of the House. All that the Sessional Order is designed to do is to reduce the amount of time available for those hon. Members on the Government side of the House to show their displeasure to the Government. Once the Government of the day have established this practice, not as a Sessional Order under trial but as a Standing Order of the House, let us see whether it is used with the same care as it was used in the last Session.
I guarantee that those hon. Members who are here tonight on the three-line whip and who will go into the Lobby to support the new Standing Order will, in the next couple of years, live to regret deeply their foolish action tonight.

10.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): This has been an extremely interesting debate. We have been able to go over all the arguments that were made last year when the Sessional Order was introduced, with one significant difference, which is that we now know exactly what happens when one has a suspended sitting whereas last Session we were merely guessing; in


other words, to quote the late Aneurin Bevan, "Why look in the crystal when we can read the book?".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is nothing if not consistent. He gave us, with one exception, the same arguments in his speech this evening against the Motion before the House that he gave last Session. He mentioned, first, a subject that should be very large in the minds of all hon. Members. Last Session and this Session he said, quite rightly: is the inconvenience that we are causing to you, Mr. Speaker, to the police, to the staff, greater by the suspended sitting than it would have been otherwise? If that is so, this is a serious point to be considered and great weight should be given to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made the same point.
My right hon. Friend, like his right hon. Friend the then Leader of the House, before him, has had consultations with the staff on this occasion to see what are their reactions. The House will recall that the Secretary of State for Social Services, then the Leader of the House, also inquired of the staff before last Session's debate, and they thought, on balance, that they might be in favour of the suspended sitting; they were not absolutely certain, but they felt that it might be a better way than continuing late night sittings.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the result of my right hon. Friend's researches on this occasion is that the staff in general believe that the suspended sitting has proved useful to them, and that they would prefer the experiment to continue.

Mr. William Whitelaw: Experiment?

Mr. Silkin: I used the word "experiment" because it was an experiment, but once an experiment has been converted into a Standing Order it ceases to be an experiment and becomes a practice of the House. I was dealing with the question of inconvenience to the staff, and I thought that I had answered it.
Another point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the previous occasion—and partly made then by the

right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, and it was certainly made by him tonight, was the picture of either a "petulant", or "infuriated" Chief Whip coming in at three o'clock in the morning, finding the House still talking and moving for a suspended sitting.
There are many things that the present Government Chief Whip, his predecessors and his successors in the years to come, will have to their discredit, but petulance and getting infuriated are not to be numbered among them. In none of the six cases mentioned in the previous Session was the Motion to suspend the sitting moved in what might be termed the white heat of petulance, still less of infuriation, if that is the noun. On the contrary, they were all carefully considered and designed purely to help the House and to save the House from sitting abnormally long.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral made a strong point when he talked about the difficulty that Ministers would be under—and hon. Members, too—who had to work in the morning, either in their Departments if they were Ministers or in Standing Committees if they were back-benchers. I see the point. He gave the picture of the suspended sitting coming at night, of an hon. Member going to his Committee or a Minister to his Department at 10 o'clock and worrying because the House was sitting on the resumed business of the previous night. That is as may be. It is a good point. It is really the nub of the argument against.
It has, however, to be weighed with one other factor. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking, I took the trouble to jot down the figures of the times at which the House would have risen on the six occasions of which we have spoken if we had not moved the suspension of the sitting, and the times are as follows. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pure guesswork."] It is not guesswork, but calculation. The times would have been 4.45 in the morning on the first, 3.20 on the second, 3.30 on the third, 3.30 on the fourth, 3.40 on the fifth, and 5 a.m. on the sixth.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: That, surely, is on the assumption that as much time would have been used at night as was used the following morning.

Mr. Silkin: A very reasonable assumption. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be forgetting that the Transport Bill, of blessed memory, was under a Guillotine at the time, and that the time allocated was identical in both cases. Under the Allocation of Time Order on the Transport Bill, it had already been decided that a certain number of hours after a late hour—I think, 10 o'clock, or 10.30—had to be given. That covers half the cases in time, so that the hours were identical.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Guillotine was measured by hours. If the Government had wanted to avoid a late sitting, they would have given an extra day.

Mr. Silkin: They certainly could have given an extra day. They could give an extra day for every single item of legislation, and the result might well be that the House would be sitting 365 days out of 365. We do have limits, however, and I must confess that I had not heard or noticed the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member on the benches opposite, complaining that we rose on 26th July this year. I saw no great signs of opposition to that and no attempts on the part of the benches opposite to make us sit into August.
So there we are. Those are the times until which Ministers, about whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is very concerned, and quite rightly, and back benchers in Standing Committee, about whom he is equally concerned, and quite rightly, would have had to stay up at night before going back at 10 o'clock in the morning in the case of a back bencher, or whatever time a Minister goes to his office, usually at 9 o'clock or 9.30, after a sitting of that sort.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames thought that it was an outrage that we should have a suspended sitting for the benefit of a few Members who wanted to get to their beds early.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The words about getting to bed a few hours earlier were used by one of my hon. Friends. I did not introduce the element of beds. I did, however, say that it was an outrage—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it, as he has challenged me on this—for the Government of the day to use their majority under a three-line Whip to force through a change

of this kind as a Standing Order without agreement.

Mr. Silkin: I will deal with that in time.

Mr. Michael Foot: One man, one bed.

Mr. Silkin: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for reading his mind rather than his words: somebody else's words, the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I think.
The point I wanted to make on this was that we should consider when suspended sittings were mainly used. They were on the Transport Bill, three times out of six, and the overwhelming majority of the House were so interested in that debate that they would have been here in any event. I do not think there can be very much doubt about that.
The right hon. Gentleman challenged me about my drawing the attention of the House to his use of the word "outrage". The right hon. Gentleman really takes me at a disadvantage, because he knows I am a great admirer, and always have been, of his rhetoric, of his party allegiance, and, if I may say so, of his extravagance: his extravagance of language always leaves me practically spellbound. I nearly said "speechless", but, obviously, that is not true tonight.
Any reform which this House has passed, going back to the Reform Bill of 1832, has been an outrage to its opponents. That is bound to be. It cannot really be an outrage for one section of the House to outvote—if that is what is to happen: I am not going to prejudge this—another section of the House. This is what we are used to. That is what the Division Lobbies are all about. I would be astonished if this were accounted an outrage in other circumstances. We, the Government, are using a democratic power. It cannot really be considered to be an outrage. The reason—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman confuses two things, the right of a majority to get its will on a public issue, such as the great Reform Bill which he mentioned, which is beyond dispute; and the lack of wisdom of a Government who, in a domestic matter of the procedure of the House of Commons, use their will and their majority to alter that,


without any measure of agreement. These are two quite distinct things.

Mr. Silkin: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they are distinct in the sense which he states. They are not distinct in the sense in which I was making my remark.
The plain fact of the matter is that this is a sensible reform. I make this

prophecy to the right hon. Gentleman: that in 20 or 30 years' time, when he and his hon. and right hon. Friends are sitting on this side of the House, they will be welcoming this reform, and welcoming it as strongly as, I hope, my hon. Friends will tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 180.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[10.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
Ledger, Ron


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Alldritt, Walter
Ensor, David
Lestor, Miss Joan


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)


Archer Peter
Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Ashley, Jack
Finch, Harold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Atkinson Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ford, Ben
MacDermot, Niall


Barnett, Joel
Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.


Baxter, William
Fowler Gerry
McGuire, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bence, Cyril
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Binns, John
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Blackburn, F.
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Blenkinsop Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu,J.P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie


Boston, Terence
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mapp, Charles


Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marks, Kenneth


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Mendelson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchanan Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test))


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Cant, R. B.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moonman, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Chapman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Coe, Denis
Horner, John
Neat, Harold


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Concannon, J. D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Norwood, Christopher


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian


Crosland Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Panell, Rt. Hn. Charles


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Judd, Frank
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Edelman, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Ellis, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn




Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Slater, Joseph
Weitzman, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Robertson, John, (Paisley)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Whitaker, Ben


Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitlock, William


Roebuck, Roy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rose, Paul
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rowlands, E.
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ryan, John
Tinn, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert
Varley, Eric G.
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Astor, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Pounder, Rafton


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prior, J. M. L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Heseltine, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Body, Richard
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, J. E. B.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Brewis John
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angue, N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carr Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Henry
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Teeling, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith Earl of
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dance, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wall, Patrick


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Doughty, Charles
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Drayson, G. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Fleteher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Foster, Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Jasper More and


Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

Adjourned debate on Question [7th November] further adjourned till Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH RAILWAYS (SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

10.56 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to make it plain that my Adjournment debate tonight is directed against the British Railways Board, and not against the genuine railwayman. The genuine railwayman, be he a maintenance worker, an engineer, a driver, a porter, on the footplate, in administration, or whatever he be, has served the railways and the country in a magnificent and commendable way, and particularly during the war.
I know a number of railwaymen, at all levels. Though they may not vote for me, I regard them as my friends. They are "browned off" with the Railways Board. They say that when they put in reports, when they put in complaints, or when they put in observations, they never get anywhere; and there is great criticism of the relationship between the Board and the genuine railwayman.
I do not suppose that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will do so, but the Minister of Transport has a great habit of saying that this has nothing to do with him, that this is a matter of day-to-day administration. However, as the money for investment in the railways comes from the Treasury, and is subject to parliamentary debate, administration and the carrying out of proper policy are matters with which the Minister ought to concern himself.
I heard yesterday that the Board has apparently persuaded the Minister to allow the building of an engine to travel at a speed of approximately 125 miles per hour. I know that the Board is composed of men, and that men love trains, but I should like the Minister to understand that the travelling public, whose case I am putting, would rather have clean loos than piped music. The travel

ling public want a quick, comfortable, punctual, and clean service.
I am glad to be able to tell the Minister that the punctuality of British Railways has slightly improved. For that I am grateful. But the public are concerned with having comfortable, clean and punctual trains, and when they arrive at a railway station they like to have normal amenities—and this is what the Board is failing to give them.
For instance, the general public do not like filthy stations. They do not like filthy lavatories. They are not all filthy, but many of them are. They do not like filthy bars on trains—and the restaurants occasionally give great cause for concern. Instead of concentrating on a train that will go at 125 m.p.h. it would be better, at this stage, if the Board could be persuaded by the Ministry what the travelling public would like.
I do not know whether the British Travel and Holidays Association has ever made any recommendations or protestations, but I wonder what it thinks when tourists—and we are very proud of our tourist trade—arrive here and go through some of our absolutely filthy stations. I am glad to say that the National Council of Women—a very reputable body, which goes into questions very closely and has a membership of very observant, fair, ordinary people—has written to me saying how much it supports my views about British Railways. When a person arrives at King's Cross to catch a sleeper train he finds that the station is like a morgue. If the train is late, as it sometimes is—often with good cause—nobody is there to announce that it is late and to say why it is late and apologise. There is an assistant stationmaster, but he generally has to be in the signal box. Some of the men who have served the railways for a long time, and know of the old traditions, are absolutely heartbroken because they are not given information which they can convey to the public.
I understand that the Central Transport Consultative Committee operated in the interests of the public. One day I thought it would be a good thing for me to attend one of its meetings so that I could put forward some of the complaints made by passengers. First, the committee tried to make me put the complaints down on paper, which is not my line of country. I said that I much preferred to


appear in person, but this did not suit the chairman. Although there were many delightful and charming men there who were no doubt doing their duty as they saw it, the thought crossed my mind that most of them probably travelled by car. The chairman had a great ambition to get me away from the Committee as quickly as possible to an elegant lunch, but that was not my idea.
I have never known anything said by that Committee to have any great effect on the Railways Board. What amuses me is that today I have appeared both on the radio, on "The World at One", and on television. Although asked, the Board did not send someone to answer me. I agree that it was short notice, but it would have been an opportunity for the Board to have submerged me without trace or to have stated its case. Four delightful but not, from my point of view, friendly men appeared on behalf of the Southern Region, two of whom had retired many years ago, and they did the best they could for the Board. It is peculiar, in these modern days, when radio and television are open to all, and people like to appear to meet criticism, that the Board would not face me.
The next thing I want to mention is the lack of porters. I suspect—although it is difficult for someone to know who is not intimately connected with the railways—that these productivity agreements have meant railwaymen doing more work in a variety of ways with which they were not concerned before. In other words, the porters have now been taken from our stations, and people have to carry their own luggage, and they find it extremely difficult. People who have had operations or have children or are getting older cannot carry their own luggage. British Railways say as reasonably as they can that, if one is ill, one can get a chair, but most people do not want to be seen being wheeled to a train. It is difficult for these people to carry their own luggage and find their places in the train.
I recently went to catch the Flying Scotsman, a very good train, from Newcastle to London. One has to pick a seat and pay for it; no one objects to this. But the Flying Scotsman stops at Newcastle Central Station for only three minutes, and after one has a ticket

one has no idea of what compartment or carriage to look for. Fortunately, this time, a kind porter carried my luggage, but he could not wait, so when the train came in I entered the first compartment I saw and took a seat which was not mine, although, fortunately, it was not reserved.
I had my two suitcases with me and there were two very polite men in the compartment. One, an elderly man, said, "I cannot help you put your luggage up, because I have a war wound and am not allowed to." A charming young man in the corner said, "It is frightful for me, but I have had an appendicitis operation and am not allowed to lift luggage." So I was sitting in a seat which was not mine, and nothing could be done about my luggage, so we had to throw it into the corridor.
It is intolerable that porters are not provided for the travelling public. It is true that now, because of nylon and other materials, the public do not have to carry such heavy cases, but they have much further to walk. The other day I was trying to get over to the West Coast from the East Coast. I arrived in Manchester, where one must walk from one station to another to change trains to get to Preston, and must walk a very long way. There was no porter and no one to give directions and no announcement on the Tannoy. Therefore, a passenger kindly carried my suitcases and showed me the way. These complaints are being made all the time and the Railways Board could not care less.
We are told that the porters have got other jobs to do. In the old days, porters did not have other jobs to do, as far as I know. They were always very agreeable and helpful. They were there to help the general public. What with filthy stations and often filthy trains, partly because the staff do not have time to clean the trains, everybody has to travel in very unpleasant circumstances.
It might be a good thing if we could have a competent woman on the Railways Board. I like the attributes of men very much indeed. I know they enjoy discussing increasing the speed of railway trains, but when it comes to the comfort of the travelling public and dealing with the dirty conditions, it would be very much better if a competent woman were able to direct the attention of the Board


to such matters so that British Railways were put in a competitive class compared with railways in other European countries.
Today, I went to an illuminating and fascinating address given by the new Secretary of State for Social Services at the National Council for Social Services. Various points of view were put forward by disabled persons. I was told to mention this matter by members of the well-known committee called the Disabled Income Group, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested. One of the spokesmen for this group said, "If you are going to talk about the railways tonight will you point out to the Minister that until recently, or possibly until the railways were nationalised, when a disabled person wanted to travel he could engage a compartment, whereas now British Railways say that anyone who wants to reserve a compartment must pay 3s. a mile?"
The disabled take a very dim view of this. It is the same with the Postmaster-General. If people want to be called to enable them to get to work in the morning, they have to pay 2s. for the telephone call. This treatment of the disabled has caused annoyance and is extremely unhelpful to those for whom the railways ought to be trying to do their best. The railways used to do their best for these people in the past. I cannot believe that the attention of the railways has not been drawn to these dirty conditions and lack of facilities.
What is very disconcerting is that when one goes to a railway station there is nobody to whom one can address an inquiry. The Railways Board says that the Tannoy system will enable people to have information. The other day, at Newcastle Central station, the Tannoy was working and the announcer was saying that the 11.26 was due to leave at 3.15 or something of the sort. But at the same time, a diesel engine arrived in the station and emitted the most terrific hoots. It went on hooting so that nobody on the station could possibly hear the announcement. I have not the slightest doubt that if somebody had missed the train, the Railways Board would have said that it was the fault of the intending passenger because he had not heard the Tannoy announcement.
I had a nice reply from the Minister of Transport when I asked about the appointment of a woman to the Railways Board. It was a typical politician's answer. He did not say "No" and he did not say "Yes". He did not rule it out. If the members of the Railways Board are to continue to give all their time to designing new engines, the passengers will not get the treatment to which they are entitled. No one wants to travel at 125 m.p.h. The present speed is adequate. A passenger cannot easily drink a cup of tea or drink his soup or have any other drink at the present speed. At 125 m.p.h., no one will be able to have a drink or to eat a meal in the restaurant car.
It would be much better if the Board learned what the ordinary railwaymen think and if they talked, for example, to the maintenance men. There are very nice maintenance men who come along when the electric light goes out just as the sleeper train is drawing out of the station. They are very competent men. They say to me—I know them well—"It is no good our talking to management. Nobody listens to what we say". That is one of the depressing distressing features of the British Railways system. Men who, in the old days, had pride in the way they ran the railways and the service which they gave, will say today, "Nobody cares, and it is no good talking about these things". I am coming to the conclusion that that is true.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not say that this is not his business. Having appointed a Railways Board and provided money for the Board to increase their investment, I do not believe that the Government have no interest in ensuring that the railways are properly run for the benefit of the passengers—and I am arguing only on behalf of the passengers.
At one time I occasionally used the line on which there was that dreadful accident at Hither Green. I hated travelling on that line because, although I am not a nervous traveller, the train swayed so much that the speed seemed to be excessive for steadiness on the rail. I wrote to a former Minister and pointed that out. In a very nice letter he replied that the train was not going too fast. But after the inquiry it turned out that the train had been going too fast for the track. I hope that the


Minister understands that when Members of Parliament of either side of the House write making complaints, they are complaining not against the railwaymen but against the administration, which at top level needs an overhaul. We want men in the administration who know about the psychology of travel, as well as about designing new engines to travel at 125 m.p.h.
I hope that the Minister thinks well of what I have tried to say. I want the railways to be a success, for I prefer to travel by rail than to travel by air or by car. But unless there is proper treatment of passengers, the railways will get worse and worse and their losses will grow bigger and bigger.

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am grateful for this opportunity to explain some of the responsibilities of the various bodies concerned with this matter, including the Railways Board, the transport users' consultative committees, and the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to show how my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport fits into the picture. All of these bodies and individuals are concerned to ensure that the railway service is maintained with the highest standard of comfort, compatible with efficiency and reasonable economy.
The matters raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) are essentially matters of management for the Railway Board. She said that nobody listens to what the railway-men say, that the railway workers are "browned off", and so on. To some extent she is probably right, but that is precisely why my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport introduced the Transport Act. As she explained, it is difficult to have good morale among the workers in an industry which continually has large deficits—because railwaymen feel that they are always losing—the Transport Act was introduced.
The Act is designed to break through this feeling; to put the railways on a completely new footing and eradicate the idea of the railways merely being given a deficit grant. Instead, the railways must pay their way—that is, as long as the nation takes responsibility for certain

charges which should properly be the responsibility of the nation and not of the railways.
When we consider the responsibilities involved, there must be a point at which we must allow the people appointed by the Minister to do their work. Considering the changes that have come about in the railway industry, which is over 100 years old, and particularly the changes of the last 10 to 20 years, one must admit that the difficulties which these changes have thrown up have been tremendous. Few industries can claim to have reduced their number of employees—in this case there has been a reduction of 29 per cent. in the last five years—so smoothly and easily. This has been an example to other industries.
The Railways Board recognise the importance of achieving and maintaining a high quality of service. It treats seriously all complaints made by members of the public and remedies deficiencies as far as it is able. The Board must operate within the limits of its financial resources and, as I have explained, we have changed the Board's remit in the Transport Act. It is only reasonable to expect the Board to take into account amenities for the public as well as speed and convenience of travel if it is to attract the custom which will enable it to pay its way, which is the ultimate touchstone by which the railways must operate.
The hon. Lady referred to her visit to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and her discussions with the Railways Board. The Committee and the Board work closely together and receive many suggestions from local transport consultative committees and from T.U.C.C.s for Wales and Monmouthshire and Scotland, which are also able to make direct representations to the Minister on important matters. I regret that the hon. Lady felt that she received cavalier treatment, however charming, from the C.T.C.C. when she attended one of its meetings. I am sure that that was not intended. I understand that the matters which she discussed there were already known to the Committee and had been considered in conjunction with the Railways Board.

Dame Irene Ward: But nothing had been done about them.

Mr. Carmichael: As I explained, the matters were known; and, in any event, the Committee exists to consider complaints made by the public. It is also responsible to see that those complaints are met, if possible, within the remit of the Railways Board.
The responsibilities of the Minister are numerous. He receives recommendations on quality of service from the C.T.C.C., the T.U.C.C. for Scotland and the T.U.C.C. for Wales and Monmouthshire. He can then, if he wishes, give directions to the Railways Board, but this power of direction is rarely used. Where improvements are practicable, they are normally carried out by agreement with the Railways Board.
The hon. Lady made a lot of the question of porters. I make no complaint about that. A number of productivity deals have been done in the railway industry in recent years, and the most recent of these concerned a change in the tasks of porters. One reason why the railways have been able to reduce their manpower by 29 per cent. has been their ability to cut out certain jobs, so helping to make this a viable industry in which conditions

and wages are improved for the men on the job.
Porters as such no longer exist. Officially, they are now "railmen". Their main job is to carry out essential station duties, such as attending to trains, closing doors, seeing that trains leave on time, unloading luggage vans, dealing with parcels, helping with station cleaning and acting as bill-posters. They are available to assist individual passengers only when their other duties permit. They expect to be called on in case of special need, such as to help the infirm, the elderly, women with prams, and so on, but advance warning is desirable.
It is impossible, in modern conditions, for the staff of railway stations to be economically—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.